Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/American Eagle

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

American Eagle

change
American Eagle (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

Nomination from Razorflame: Hi there all. I would like to present American Eagle to the community for the role of being a bureaucrat. He has been editing on this site since April 2008 and became an administrator on this site during July of the year 2008. Since then, he has blocked roughly 30-40 users, deleted more than 300 pages, patrolled more than 500 revisions, and protected more than 30 pages. These figures state that he has the experience with the mop that is necessary in order to become a bureaucrat. Furthermore, American Eagle has been active in the community pretty much since he started editing here (with a few breaks here and there). He already has some experience being a bureaucrat because he is a bureaucrat over on the Simple English Wikiquote. I fully trust American Eagle with everything that he does on this site, and I fully respect him. I hope you, the members of the community can trust him as well.

Candidate's acceptance: Just a note: I don't have 30 blocks yet, more like 15. One of them was the ShockingHawk unblock, which I did on October 19, 2008, and largely regret. It was a mistake I have very much learned from. Otherwise, I would be glad to be granted the bureaucrat flag, as I am an excellent bureaucrat on Simple English Wikiquote. :P Anyways, thank you, Razorflame, I accept the nomination. TheAE talk 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

change
  1. Support as nominator. Good luck! Razorflame 21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly support- One of the Admin's I trust most, also one of my best Wikifriends, which is important to know cause he doesn't let that come between telling me the truth and doing his duties. I can entrust him with the tools.-- † CM16 t c r 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - One of the best we have. SimonKSK 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, AE, but Peter gave a very good point. Changing to oppose. SimonKSK 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - has the experience. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note, he doesn't actually have the experience. He was only made a crat there a week ago. -Djsasso (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt he means bureaucratic experience alone, of which I would agree, I was flagged very recently there. TheAE talk 23:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, I just wanted to make note because in your nom it sounds like Razorflame is talking about you having crat experience. Which you don't really have. -Djsasso (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I said some experience and not a lot. That means that while he just became a bureaucrat, he probably already has a bit of experience. Hope this clears this up. Razorflame 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - One of the best choices for bureaucratship. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support - Still maintaining my support, however those opposes are starting to change my mind. Good luck. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 10:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - The opposes are convincing, but I'm confident AE will make a fine 'crat. –Juliancolton (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He's a cool guy who's set up wikis and helped in numerous places on the net. Erwin Springer (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC) User created after RfA started, vote not counted. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 02:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

change
  1. Oppose I'm sorry, I don't trust his judgement with regards to disruptive users like FastReverter, Jonas, and Tharnton. I feel he is too soft on such editors, who have, in the end, caused our better editors to leave. He is also not very active as an admin. I'm not seeing the net positive here. Majorly talk 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I am very sorry for what happened with SH/FS, it was a mistake I have learned from. However, with Jonas, I am very much for his ban, enough disruption was enough. With Tharnton, I decided to stay out of that discussion fully. I didn't want to create an issue, and I somewhat believed he should be banned. I didn't ever fight for the second two users, and I have apologized for the first. TheAE talk 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I have to agree with Majorly, I question his judgement. And his activity level, has been relatively inactive as admin over the last 3 months with only about 75 admin actions. No reason to believe he would be any more active as a 'crat. And what we need most right now is an active 'crat with good judgement. -Djsasso (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Edit conflict: I would've written the same things Majorly did. Especially with the too much AGF stuff. Yes, second chances are OK but repeatedly standing up for someone who doesn't grow up? You are not an active enough admin either. Sorry AE, I do like you though :D ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At: "...repeatedly standing up for someone who doesn't grow up," Static wasn't a matter of needing to "grow up." It was disruption that got him banned, and I supported it (after I made my foolish unblock). As for activity, I have made several hundred edits this week alone, along with tens of administrative actions. Granted, I was semi-active for a while before that, but only because I was focusing on Simple English Wikiquote, not because I left. I became more active when all the drama began, as I didn't want to see this Wikipedia fully fall apart. TheAE talk 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Kennedy (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason? Nothing to improve? Alright. TheAE talk 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice advice, Kennedy. I'm sure AE will take it to heart. SimonKSK 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, should have put something down: Its a question of judgement. There was consensus for the block of Static, yet he decided to undo my block stating that an admin should not do something another admin disagrees with. Ironic. I question his judgement. Its all been said above (and below) too. Kennedy (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TheAE displays a very stonewallish "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude, most evident when he claimed that RFA was "pathetically a game" and the result of Razorflame 10 as "utterly, completely, totally pathetic". Bascially he calls everyone that opposed Razorflame stupid, doesn't respect their opinion, their view that Razorflame is unfit for the tools. He could have said, "I don't agree with you" but no, he says it's "pathetic" that RF failed. This is not the kind of behavior or attitude I expect, nor do I want to see, from a bureaucrat trusted in deciding consensus in an RFA. Besdies, it's broken. Why do you want to run for more power in a broken system? (Archive 43 for those who have short memories). cassandra (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, that just isn't true, Cass. I mean, RfA isn't about trust anymore, it's a game. It's about editcountitis and drama and so on. I'm not calling Shapiros10, Steve Crossin, Majorly, Bluegoblin7, Kennedy or Soup Dish stupid, some of them are good wikifriends. Also, I never said the word "stupid" – I said "pathetic" – and I didn't say it to anyone – I said the system alone was pathetic (and let's face it, is our systems, wikidrama and retirements not pathetic?). If we were all to simply say, "the system is broken so I'm not ever running for anything," where would that get us? I would sooner fail at something than to not do it with the excuse that I'll have to go through a broken system to achieve it. And also, I'm not running for power. I am running for 'cratship. The two are very, very different. I don't believe what you said about me is true, but if your issue with me is trust, I will not fight for your !vote. Thanks. TheAE talk 07:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is part of the issue, these people had decent reasons for opposing. They were mostly about trust. So if you are calling valid trust related opposes pathetic, then how can we trust you to close an RfA properly? You are very opinionated which isn't an issue but what it shows us is that you might have a hard time putting aside your opinons and do the opposite because thats what the community has called for. As a side note you only suddenly got active again when it looked like you might be nom'd here for cratship which could be looked upon as you running for power and not for cratship. -Djsasso (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like AE as a person, and I trust him as an admin, but I don't think bureaucratship is the right role for him at the moment. As a bureaucrat, the user must be dispassionate about RfAs. They cannot let their personal beliefs interfere with their duties as bureaucrat. Frankly, the outburst following Razorflame's RfA was deeply concerning. AE wanted Razorflame to be an admin, of course, as his nominator. The opposes were very valid indeed. So to unilaterally call the system pathetic is extremely odd, and strikes of personal bias rather than an attempt to either change the system, or explain why the RfA was so pathetic. Maybe our opinions differ, but not much about that RfA struck me as either broken nor pathetic. You have my support as a user and an admin, but not 'crat at this time. Sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. oppose - Per Peter. SimonKSK 18:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, not done any research, but appears to be relatively inactive. Also, slight bias between "wikifriends"? MC8 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's best to do some research, so you can be sure, MC8. SimonKSK 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm? He's made over 250 changes in about a week. That seems quite active to me. –Juliancolton (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of us (or at least I have) have been reffering to admin activity where he only has about 75 actions in the past 3 months. Which is extremely low for someone wanting a crat bit. To give it some context for you, you have done more than that in about 9 days. -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation. –Juliancolton (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't let wikifriends come between his admin duties, did you even read my support?-- † CM16 t c r 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't read your support: just because you think something doesn't mean it is true. It's what I think, even if you disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong. I, as a rule, often oppose/support before reading anything else: it's how I feel about the candidate, not what others think. Otherwise it would be a bandwagon. MC8 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "One of the Admin's I trust most, also one of my best Wikifriends, which is important to know cause he doesn't let that come between telling me the truth and doing his duties. I can entrust him with the tools." - Wait, as an admin isn't one of your duties to tell the truth? I know that he doesn't let wikifriends come in his way, but your support seems mixed up. SimonKSK 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not mixed up, We're Wikifriends and but he does what's best for Wikipedia regardless, even if it might hurt our friendship, he doesn't let it get in the way. Hope I made it clearer.-- † CM16 t c r 06:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose I'm very sorry AE, I just don't think that you are right for this job at SEWP. You do a great job at SEWQ, but I think that you should definitely be more active here. Shapiros10 02:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Very sorry AE, I like you and I know I was gone for a bit (family issues) but finding this leads me to wonder if you have the dispassion to be a crat. Hot headedness is not a quality I'd look for in a b'crat. For me, I'd be looking for a good 6 months from now to see that you've changed from this type of rash edit. I understand that your youthful years may have led to this, but I have to go by actions. Sorry (moral support however!) fr33kman t - c 03:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

change
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/American_Eagle&oldid=8899397"