Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/El C

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

El C[edit]

final (44/9/0) ending 18:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

It is with some wry satisfaction, but with a very good conscience that I nominate El C: he has shown himself very apprehensive to signs of hierarchy within the wiki, reminding us that admins are charged with enforcing policy, but not with making it up as they go along, and I would very much like to have him continue representing this point of view on the other side of the fence (except that I hope there isn't really a fence). He has >2400 edits (some 600 of which to article space); he is doing maintenance work, shows strong community involvement anf good humour, and has proven himself cool and competent. I am a bit surprised that less than a quarter of his edits should be to article space, but I guess that shows he talks first and reverts later, which is as it should be — dab () 18:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Thank you dab, I accept. Wrt to number of edits to the article namespace, my edits are often sizable, unlike more conversational 'comments,' and I lean more towards authoring new articles and total rewrites rather than more incremental edits (e.g. [1]), undoubtedly a factor in what already is considerable opposition. I am so (not) going to win! El_C 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

finally someone who knows where the preview button is! (I confess half of my edits must be due to typos :) dab ()


  1. dab () 18:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Calm, even-handed, thoughtful — how could I not support? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong support. El C is one of our most knowledgeable editors: funny, smart, reasonable, and civil, always willing to listen to the other side of an argument. He'll make a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Charles P. (Mirv) 19:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Merovingian (t) (c) 03:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong support. A very good, evenhanded editor.Grace Note 03:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Willmcw 04:31, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Suuport. Good and experienced user. Sjakkalle 07:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support-JCarriker 09:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support - Anilocra 13:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support →Iñgōlemo← talk 15:06, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  12. Support. In terms of ideology, El C and I aren't on the same page, but I have the highest respect for his personal integrity. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Yes, with pleasure. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. I see knowledgeable editor with stamina to clean up topics after POV pushers. Pavel Vozenilek 17:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support - I only all admins had his committment to integrity. String support. --Zappaz 17:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Full support. Andre (talk) 19:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support he might be a Commie who likes Che, however, I'll overlook it :)--198 02:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. Acegikmo1 04:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Lupo 06:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. iViva la revolution!Comrade!--Jondel 09:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. We need more admins who are willing to ask "Quis custodiet?"; Support Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 10:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  22. Cool. JuntungWu 11:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Reasonable, thoughtful, and humorous, though I believe his cat is doing all the editing. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Kbdank71 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. --Chammy Koala 19:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Viajero 19:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  27. Competent and contributive editor, so support. Radiant_* 08:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Guettarda 16:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Calm and knowledgeable editor. Though his views tend to significantly differ from my own, resulting in disgreements over article content, his responses are always thoughtful. In my view will make good use of admin powers. Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Shows evidence of community involvement, restraint, and a willingness to talk out problems. Good sense of humor, too. No reason to oppose. Kelly Martin 17:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. A good-humoured contributor and worthy of the mop and bucket. His cat will keep him in line. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Solid, genuine contributor. I've been impressed by his work. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support ... — MikeX (talk) 07:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Strongly Support He is incredibly knowledgeable — wide-ranging and often deep, exactly the kind of contributor we want. Just as important, I have seen him bend over backwards to avoid POV edit-wars, and to work well with others. I know that there are some who do not like his "point of view." I can't say I have followed all of his edits, but anything I have been involved in, including a number where he and I disagreed, he always had facts to support his position, while always taking my views (and evidence) seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. I'm impressed by his edits, and he seems to stay cool. (I comment below on an exception.) -- Hoary 04:08, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  36. Support. --Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support FeloniousMonk 16:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support.--Bishonen | talk 19:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support I was very glad to have his help in a certain long-running dispute that I strayed into; that and his cautious stance on hierarchy greatly commends his nomination to me. Alai 01:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. I am impressed by the support of good editors who have views significantly different from his. That says a lot. Jonathunder 02:17, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  41. Support Danny 03:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support wholeheartedly. All my dealings with him have proven to me not only his erudition and dedication to Wikipedia but also his reasonableness and willingness to work to solve disputes. Wally 10:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. Very knowledgable and keeps his cool despite working in areas of Wikipedia that are more like jungles. An excellent choice of admin. --Zero 12:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Opinionated--which is good. Listens and responds to the opposition--which is very good. Cool and waits even when he does not get his way--which is very, very good. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. See Talk page. Sam Spade 23:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Surely you jest. RickK 23:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Rick, you're a widely respected editor, whose views many listen to. Would you mind explaining your opposition to El C? Is it based in anything in particular? Grace Note 03:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I also think it is customary to give a brief reason for opposition, if only to let the nominee know why he is considered unfit for adminship. dab ()
  4. A.D.H. (t&m) 05:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please give at least a brief explanation for your opposition. Not doing so is discourteous and offers the nominee no clue as to what they need to do to improve. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Decent enough user, good edits, but a bit too much of a POV pusher to become an Admin. TDC 17:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    Do you mean, in a way that damaged the NPOV of an article? Can you provide an example or two? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Talk:Socialism#Socialists_don.27t_define_Socialism for one. Be careful of your formatting btw, you mixed up the vote count. Thanx, Sam Spade 21:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    What's significant is that SS must honestly believe that the exchange to which he links shows El C rather than himself in a bad light. Astonishing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Only an old hand at fallacious rhetoric such as yourself would find a request of sources for far reaching claims "Astonishing". Sam Spade 22:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Sam, do you really need to make an ad hominem personal attack on another user to support your point? You should know that on the contrary, it weakens it. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    It would appear you could do to review ad hominem, your opinion of me and my conduct should have no bearing on your evaluation of my argument, and your attempt to correlate the two is a classic ad hominem fallacy. My apologies if your trying to be ironic. Please watch the formatting btw. Sam Spade 22:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. IMHO, El C still needs more experience working in this community. only 648 edits to articles - and almost more edits to user talk pages than edits in articles. also, I am not impressed with how El C acts in pressure situations. Maybe I'll support at a later date. Kingturtle 17:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Change vote. ugen64 23:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I'm little hesitant to oppose because El C has some very good contributions to articles and is always civil, but reviewing his old dialogue with Shorne (all that Comrade nonsense) and other supportive comments [2] about egregious left-wing POV-pushers leaved a bad impression. I'm afraid El C could became a troll-friendly admin. jni 08:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't imagine he would be a POV pusher or Troll-friendly considering Jayjg has voted support even whilest admitting "his views tend to significantly differ from my own." If he was a POV pusher, a lot of the people supporting him wouldn't have. Sometimes it's good to remember that what you read isn't the whole story. --Chammy Koala 09:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd like to second Chammy Koala's comment. My experience of El C is that he goes with what he sees as the best argument at the time and is always open to persuasion. I've disagreed with him a few times but have come to respect him a great deal because he's so reasonable. As for being troll-friendly, El C respects Wikipedia's policy and goals too much for that. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 18:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)



  • El C currently has 2472 total edits: 648/630 to articles/talk, 93/615 to User/talk, 322/76 to Wikipedia/talk, and 87/1 to Image/talk. —Korath (Talk) 21:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Neat, I did not know that (Kate's tools just aggragates everything). How did you find this out, Korath? Oh and thank you for voting for me, against me, for me, against me, against, for! :) El_C 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's sad that only one of the voters against has given a reason. A reason would not only be helpful to the candidate (and to other potential candidates), but would also show greater courtesy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    ... and the "POV pusher" accusation from a user self-describing as "banned from too many chat rooms to mention" who sees WP as "an opportunity to persuade" :o) I think I can only infer ElC's alleged pushed pov indirectly, judging bythe corner the opposition seems to hail from... dab () 20:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would just like to say, if I might, that this is really awful form, Sam. You posted a hostile message on my talk page berating not only myself but El_C as well for issues that were and continue to be far out of our control, after refusing to accept any of the proposed remedies for it, and then you complained to the AMA Coordinator about the fact, and now you have the nerve to cite my request that you cease spewing such negativity (and El_C's support of it) as reason that he's somehow unsuitable to be an administrator? Strangely you seem never to have the same objections to yourself. Wally 10:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, actually it was the others I was thinking of; I realised that with you it was personal. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

El C quotes

    • It might be worth noting that El C posted the above shortly after taking medication in connection with some oral surgery he was due to have, and was writing under its influence. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • A useful bit of information — though in any case I can't see what relevance either quotation has to a vote against his adminship. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • we don't deny adminship on the grounds that a user has an opinion. We do deny it in cases of aggressive pov pushing, edit-warring, disruption or otherwise erratic behaviour. El C was involved in very controversial articles, pov-crusader-magnets I don't even go near for my peace of mind. So yes, he was involved in disputes, and didn't just walk away when he was attacked. I still have to see evidence that he acted insincerely, vicious, unfair or outside policy. I'm not saying he didn't since I didn't follow him around, but so far opposition seems entirely based on the fact that he was involved in disputes, necessarily on the "wrong" side in the eyes of some. dab () 07:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that it's his own interests (and not, say, the interests of WP) about which El C professes not to give a flying fuck. Taken literally, this is an expression of an entirely admirable disinterestedness, and thus very praiseworthy. But of course it's not only that: "I could not give a flying fuck about" is hardly polite conversation. Well, it's his own page; one needn't be so polite on one's own page, and certainly there is (or should be) no obligation always to be polite there. -- Hoary 04:08, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Until a few months ago, I could'nt have seen myself accepting such a nomination —it isn't of any use for me in what I do here (and what do I do here? Not that much, in fact)— but since I began my rewrite of African countries leads, my watchlist has seen quite a bit of vandalism (moreover, it often is not reverted in what I find to be timely enough fashion. Note the 5 hrs it took to revert the vandalism for the Republic of Chad, for example). So, the admin vandalism tools would be convinient, though I realize many don't find that to be sufficient grounds for a successful RFA, that's all I got. El_C 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Currently, I am pleased with my African countries lead paragraph project. It amazed me that some countries (such as the Republic of Guinea, the Republic of Mali, and others barely had an opening sentence, let alone a paragraph). I am also pleased with the The Destruction of the European Jews, which I am sole author of but far from sole contributor to, and I wish to take this moment to thank everyone who edited that article for their patience and support. An earlier, more brief article I'm pleased with is the Kahan Commission. It certainly needs expansion, but it could have been a POV magnet, and I'm pleased to have layed a neutral enough basis for future revisions. These examples, as well as others, and I think (if I could boast), the vast majority of all substantive edits made by me to the namespace, unlike my more controversial views in the realm of policy discussions and article talk, have been retained by the community at large with little effort on my part. Which is encouraging. El_C 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?

A. Invariably, it's a part of editing the controversial areas that I oftentimes focus on (the Arab-Israeli conflict, political and economic history and theory, and others). While winning this nomination seems unlikely now, in light of the size of my opposition versus supporters, I am pleased I can have an opportunity to address these issues with them in mind. I believe that those who oppose my nomination have genuine grievences and that their opposition is based on rational considerations. It shows from their diverse composition especially, that I have not been the model contributor I thought I was. And perhaps this could serve for me as a chance to critically reflect about the goals of the project and how I could expend my energy most suitably towards those with the limited time I can spare to editing on a day-to-day basis. The short answer, then, is that I don't seek conflict (in fact, I do try to avoid it when possible), but at the same time, nor do I shy from it whenever I find it of import to adopt a position on an issue. Whether here or elsewhere, I will continue to try my best in inter-personal interactions (and inter-editorial collaboration), I will undoubtedly err, but will remain open to constructive criticism about anything whatsoever (including but not limited to my ability to take criticism). Here, and in life. El_C 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)