Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agüeybaná

Agüeybaná

Voice your opinion (talk page) (18/1/1); Scheduled to end 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agüeybaná (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Eddie for adminship. I know his username isn’t Eddie, but I’m far too lazy and inept to type it in its entirety, so Eddie he will remain.

Eddie takes somewhat of a leadership role in WikiProject Puerto Rico, and is an excellent advocate for articles related to Puerto Rico. Many prolific editors have a general area of preference, Eddie’s is his homeland. Through his work in the project, he has brought several articles to good status, and has created numerous articles, many of which have gone on to appear on the Main Page through Did You Know? Portal:Puerto Rico, which Eddie has contributed to extensively, is currently a featured portal candidate.

Eddie is knowledgeable in policy, and is a regular participant in articles for deletion debates. He is also a username reporter. I envisage that if granted sysop rights, he would use his tools effectively in those areas, and in multiple others.

It may come as a surprise to some that I am nominating Eddie for adminship, considering that he and I have had several disagreements of late. My response is that one of the most important aspects of the Requests for adminship process, and one that must be agreed on in the current Request for comment for said process, is that “forgiving and forgetting” must become a central element of the process. I am not a religious person, and there is no reason to be one to forgive and forget, so I have chosen to overlook Eddie’s sometimes odd behaviour and occasionally atrocious sense of humour, and instead to see the many good points in this editor’s favour.

I believe that granting Eddie adminship will benefit the project and its ideals, and as such he has my support in this request. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NB. This is Eddie’s second request for adminship. The first, under his old username of Boricuaeddie, can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie. Please note also that Boricuaeddie (talk · contribs) has since been blocked, as it was recreated by a troll after Eddie’s renaming. Further information can be found on Eddie’s talk page or archives, but it should be noted that any edits or account creations logged under Boricuaeddie’s name were not performed by the current candidate. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nomination For me it is a privilege to co-nominiate Agüeybaná for adminship. I have seen Eddie grow in Wikipedia and I'm very impressed with how mature he is despite his age. He is a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire while interacting with others. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. Agüeybaná is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 06:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nomination I was actually working a nom for Eddie myself [1] so this is just a copy-paste work sorry if it sounds somewhat unusual since it was meant as the first paragraph of the nom Members of the Wikipedia community, I present to you Agüeybaná (more commonly refered to as Eddie) since March 10, 2007 he has been a productive member of our community, gathering more than 7,500 edits in this time period. Among his contribution are helping improve Ramon Emeterio Betances to both Good and Featured status, creating eight articles, successfully nominating 11 articles to DYK, frecuently working with Portal:Puerto Rico (which is currently a Featured Portal Candidate) and creating WikiProject Puerto Rico's Newsletter. He is also a frecuent contributor in several areas of the project icluding: WP:RFA, WP:FAC, WP:FL, WP:AFC and several kinds of deletion discussions. He had a previous RFA which was unsuccessful, but after working with him in several aspects of the project during the last three months and reviewing his contributions, I believe he has worked with the concerns raised in that nomination and several members of the community (including two admins) have agreed with me on this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm Eddie and I approve this message! --Agüeybaná 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I believe I have experience in several admin-related areas, and I would like to work with as many as possible. I think where I would be most active if made an admin would be WP:AIV, C:CSD, and WP:AFD. I am also an active user at the Wikimedia Commons, where I am a trusted user, and have moved more than 25 free images found here there. When the move is done, the image is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#I8. However, most of the time, the image just sits there for weeks waiting to be deleted, so I would like to participated in that area, too. Other areas I would drop by occasionally include other types of deletion debates and WP:ACC, as well as WP:UAA and WP:RFC, although I would probably participate with much caution, as the rules seem to have changed a lot since I last reported a username there.

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

A: I think my best contribs to this encyclopedia would be anything I have done to improve Wikipedia's coverage of my country and its people. Specifically, I think my edits to P:PUR, Ramón Emeterio Betances, Luis Muñoz Marín, and others are my best. I have also uploaded several photos from Flickr to the Commons and have used them to pretty-fy articles. I think those are pretty good, too, even though they're really minor.

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: Yes, many. I have found that disengagement is the best answer for me, as it prevents any further nasty discussions and ultimately solves the problem.

4. Optional question from After Midnight: Can you please describe what you did with my input from your prior RFA? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Sure. I'll do it one by one:

"1) Withdraw this RFA" —  Done :-)

"2) Edit" —  Done. I've been editing for 2 more months and have almost twice as much edits, but I don't think edit count should be an important factor in determining one's suitability as an admin.

"3) Get into conflicts" —  Done, sadly. Some recent ones include trying to get GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) to stop edit-warring with other editors on the Ed Trice and Gothic Chess articles, trying to stop Kappa (talk · contribs) from pushing his POV at the Tamao Satō article, and trying to stop Jemmy Button (talk · contribs) from adding unreferenced POVs to the Hogging article (I even got RfCd because of this).

"4) Resolve them" —  Done. See above.

"5) Help other people resolve their conflicts" —  Done. See the Ed Trice thing above.

"6) Contribute to policy" —  Done. I'm not entirely sure what you meant with this, but I did try to get consensus for non-admins to be able to close AfDs at WP:DELPRO.

"7) Understand that Wikipedia is more than a bunch of policies, guidelines and essays." —  Done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a community; I think I got that.

Hope this is satisfying. --Agüeybaná 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Do you still stand by this comment: "... If you're not going to actively use them, then I do not trust you with them. ... --Eddie 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)," taken from this RfA? If your opinion has changed regarding this quote, please elaborate on why so. If it hasn't changed, please explain that as well. (As a side note, I consider you an excellent candidate, I won't oppose regardless of the answer.) RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, I do, although certainly not as strongly as when I said that. It is my belief that we give people administrator rights so that they can help maintain the project and make this the best free online encyclopedia ever. People who request adminship knowing that they're not going to use the tools are, in my opinion, power-hungry editors who are just looking for something to show off to their friends. I also endorse a policy used at the Wikimedia Commons that says that admins who do not use their tools in 5 months will have their rights removed, and I think that should be used here, too. Of course, every little thing helps, so I don't use that as a factor when determining a candidate's suitability as an admin any more. --Agüeybaná 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Spebi

6. You confronted a user on their talk page, claiming that their large banner at the top of the page was taken from another user's talk page without attribution. You then claimed in that same diff that it was GFDL violation, and the user must attribute or remove it immediately. Do you still believe today that it was a genuine GFDL violation?

A: Could you rephrase the question? --Agüeybaná 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my wording hasn't been the best lately. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the user originally adding the banner, and here is the diff of the user attributing the other user from which he got the banner from initially. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may be wrong, but, last time I checked, the point of the GFDL is to allow a work to be reproduced, while protecting the original author's rights. CO copied the banner without attribution to the original author (Betacommand). Therefore, unless he had permission, it was a copyright violation. But, that's been resolved, which is what I wanted. To answer your question, yes, I believe it was a violation at that time. --Agüeybaná 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the notice was added on my request. --Agüeybaná 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from CO

7. Do you intend to help with fair use backlog? Last time I checked it was 14 days backlogged, and being trusted on commons means you must have some knowledge of WP:NFCC and licensing in general.

A. Absolutely. If you check my deleted contribs, you'll notice that I've worked many times with fair use images, here as well as commons. I'd be glad to use my licensing knowledge to help out there. --Agüeybaná 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Agüeybaná's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie
• Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie2
• Requests for adminship/Agüeybaná

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Agüeybaná before commenting.

Discussion

• Once again, a stupid amount of co-noms. I don't want to have to read through a huge mass of text just to get to the candidate's statement. 86.137.25.192 15:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no statement from me. You don't have to read the noms; just review the contribs and participate. BTW, who are you, and how did you find this? --Agüeybaná 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • (1) Exactly? I'm pretty sure people would rather hear from you than random passers by who decided to drop on the popularity bandwagon. (2) Is that relevant? There's a big link to it on your talkpage. This is a wiki, you know. 86.137.25.192 17:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • If you don't want to read them don't do it, that's a easy solution for it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• When a person has various co-nominators, it is an indication that he/she is held in high esteem by other editors. Participants are not required to read each nomination, that is their option. What I find curious, however is that the anon complaining states "Once again, a stupid amount of co-noms" indicating that he/she has participated in this process before, yet when I checked said editor's contributions I found this: [2]. Strange isn't it? Tony the Marine 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That IP is not a static one. I am familiar with this user, and he does have experience. – Aillema 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  A nomination is to introduce a candidate. What's the purpose of a bunch of nominations? It need not be indicated that the candidate is held in high esteem. Let the RfA participants go through the contributions of the candidate and decide for themselves. We are lazy enough as it is. It's no favor to wikipedia if the RfA participants see 5 noms and say, "wow, all those noms... the candidate must be great!". No need to encourage that kind of thing. Anything that really needs to be said can be said in the discussion section or as part of your support. - TwoOars (Rev) 20:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note: The first two supports were added before the RfA was accepted and transcluded. I'm not going to remove them, as they're the noms. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely irrelevant. Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You guys are right. There's no need for so many noms. I have only accepted the ones I believe describe a different aspect of my editing. Thank you for your comments. --Agüeybaná 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I find it a little discourteous to delete positive good-faith comments without further discussion. You could have moved them to the talk page and add a link from this page, or something. Melsaran (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I notified the noms. I think they're OK with it. --Agüeybaná 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        •  Done. Added a link at the talk page. --Agüeybaná 15:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you, Agüeybaná and Tony, normally treat anons as you did above? --Iamunknown 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think I mistreated the guy. I just stated something and asked the anon a question. And, no, I don't ask all anons questions like this. I work actively at WP:AFC, where I work closely with anons, and I think I treat them pretty well. After all, they're people, too :-) --Agüeybaná 19:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • To be fair, my tone was confrontational too. Just so we're clear, I'm not pissed off by his response. 86.137.25.192 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's a good thing. I am quick to worry that regular editors are putting off new editors ... sorry for jumping to a conclusion. --Iamunknown 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agueybana needs to think his decision to become an administrator through very carefully. Becoming an administrator at such a young age puts you at high risk for some very ugly forms of abuse. You may have the mental maturity to make excellent decisions, but you need the maturity to keep a level head during high-pressure situations and continue playing the administrative chess game. 68.19.77.38 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't assure you that I will remain cool at all times, but I certainly can promise you that I'll try the very best I can to keep my calm during those high-pressure situations. --Agüeybaná 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as co-nominator. Tony the Marine 06:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support - Per my explanation above and great interaction with this user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
3. I would definitely trust this user with the mop. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support I see no good reason to oppose. So support!RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
5. the_undertow ^talk 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong support I've noticed Eddie many, many times here and he's done a great job of spreading his contributions across the namespaces, and truly doing a great job at participating in nearly every part of this project. He's a great help at articles for creation, has has even started some work on the Signpost (see here). And, of course, Eddie's outstanding participation in the mainspace must be noted, doing everything from minor edits, like referencing articles and reverting vandalism, to serious article editing [3] [4]. This, along with his always civil interactions with other users and the fact that Wikipedia would be greatly helped with Eddie in this capacity, leaves me no choice other than to support. Good luck, Eddie! ( arky ) 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Great guy. :) GlassCobra (Review) 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support --Hirohisat ^紅葉 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support — The issues from the prior RfA have been resolved, with the immaturity issues definitely being so (as a result of other concerns presented previously having been resolved). —[[Animum | talk]] 17:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - I believe Eddie would make a fine administrator. Into The Fray ^T/C 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - I see no reason to oppose. Lara❤Love 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - from my nom - Eddie is an active editor, registering a an impressive 1,700 edits in the Wiki-space alone, participating in deletion debates and diligent reporting at WP:UAA. He has demonstrated a great commitment to the project above and beyond most users. He collaborates, using talk pages to incite users to get active, as evidenced by the WikiProject Puerto Rico newsletter he created and maintains. I'm believe this user will do great with the tools. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Candidate's explanation of previous sentiments is satisfactory. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Hell yeah! Knows the deletion policy, remembers to notify people when their article is tagged for speedy, as well as wikifying and formatting articles, making substantial contributions, and being a good vandal-fighter. He is exactly the kind of editor we need as an administrator. Walton^One 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I would certainly trust Agüeybaná as an admin. Captain panda 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
16. I supported the last time. All my interactions with Agüeybaná have been positive; listens to and takes advice as well. Acalamari 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support has common sense--Phoenix 15 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Common sense is the least common of the senses :-) --Agüeybaná 20:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

18. Support Have seen good work by this editor around the traps, and believe them to be sensible and intelligent. I think he would do well with the mop Orderinchaos 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Weak support for what it's worth, although I'm still slightly uncomfortable. Carbon Monoxide 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not impressed by this. This is too BITEy and confrontational in a prospective admin candidate. I've unfortunately never found Eddie as an exceptionally mature user, but things like BTW, who are you, and how did you find this? are just plain rude. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair, that anon's only contribs are here, is very familiar with the process, and, appears very experienced. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I've been around for 3+ years now so I'm hardly a newbie. 86.137.25.192 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   I was just asking a question. I was curious. I hardly see that as rude. --Agüeybaná 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose Few concerns, such as unhelpful comments like this, and accusing a user of bad faith, which is bad faith on your behalf. I also feel that your admin standards are fairly high. I feel that you group everyone who has few mainspace edits into one group, and don't take time to review what they plan to do when they become an admin. For example, if an admin plans to be active on WP:ANI, yes, mainspace contributions would be much more important because you would have to know relevant polices and communication is extremely important. However if you plan to focus on deleting spam pages, mainspace contributions isn't need so much, it's just a simple matter of deciding if a page is complete crap or not. Carbon Monoxide 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   How ironic. I actually thought I was being too merciful with admin candidates. Well, at least I'm not asking them to have FAs, right? Seriously, though, mainspace contribs shows willfulness to work collaboratively and shows that the user is clear on what we're doing here in Wikipedia. I think it's a perfectly justified reasoning when evaluating a user's suitability as an admin. I understand that you disagree with it, but opposing me because of it isn't going to change the way I evaluate candidates. --Agüeybaná 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I agree with CO that your standards for admin candidates are far too high, and that substantial mainspace edits shouldn't be a pre-requisite for passing RfA. However, that isn't a reason to oppose (this isn't an RfB, after all, and you're entitled to hold different views in good faith). Walton^One 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

2. I have concerns about this user's judgement and temperament. Some examples are the defiant unwillingness to compromise as displayed here and here, where Ag, in response to a personal attack by Kappa, makes the exact same implication in return. Two wrongs don't make a right, and if two editors lose control, it doesn't matter who started it. Also, the "You do not accept that you are wrong, continue to attack me, keep reverting my edits when the article is unprotected, and you get blocked" attitude strikes me as leading to the abuse of admin tools in conflicts. Picaroon (t) 22:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I share the above concerns - I find Eddie quite bitey and needlessly aggressive. He seems to me to have a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Not very good if you're on the wrong end of a bad block. – Aillema 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Um, I only had that attitude because I was right, according to policy, and I was not the only one to think that. Anyway, your final comment is irrelevant; another admin can unblock if (s)he feels the block was a bad one. --Agüeybaná 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   This response, minutes after I posted simply proves my point. "Um"; "irrelevant" - words like that sound bad. What are you trying to say? – Aillema 00:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning support - I was really expecting to oppose this RFA, but I'm impressed with your response to my question. I'll do some additional research and make a final decision in a couple days. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)