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

Eagles247[edit]

Final (125/2/1); Closed by Rlevse at 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Eagles247 (talk · contribs) – My name is Eagles247, and I am self-nominating myself for adminship. I joined Wikipedia on May 29, 2009, and since then I have accumulated over 17,000 edits, one two Good Articles (Mike Kafka and Kevin Kolb) and nine DYKs. I focus my edits on American football articles, and I am a member of WikiProject National Football League and WikiProject College football. I have also created over 50 articles and a list of the pages I have created is here. I feel that if I receive the mop, it will be a net-positive for the project because I am hard-working, eager to learn new skills, and I know almost every most policies by heart. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to participate at AIV, SPI, AFD, MFD and NPP. I have the most experience at SPI especially, and I have filed many reports for sockpuppets, with the majority of my reports for User:Gigogag and User:Timmy Polo (see this and this). I am very capable of identifying similarities in editing habits and styles, and I feel this is why I have success at locating socks. I have closed a few AfDs already (due to the article being speedy deleted during the discussion, among other reasons), such as this, this and this. I have also closed some MfDs for various reasons, including this, this, this and this. I have been active patrolling new pages for some time now, and I understand what meets the criteria for speedy deletion and what may have to be proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have one two Good Articles so far, Mike Kafka and Kevin Kolb, which I take much pride in. As I developed the article, I grew as an editor and learned about MoS and referencing. Besides that, my main content contributions are to NFL articles and templates. I cleanup and copyedit where I can, as proofreading is very important on Wikipedia. I revert vandalism on a daily basis, and Twinkle has made warning and reverting easier for me.
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: It's hard to be on Wikipedia for over a year without having any conflicts. I deal with stress usually by remaining calm and seeing the best way to resolve the issue in the fairest way possible. If a compromise is possible, I will suggest it to the other user and see if it is acceptable for them. At User talk:Eagles247#Bill Walsh, there was a dispute over Bill Walsh (American football coach) and the language of the lead. I proposed a compromise, and the other user was all for it.
Additional question from Buggie111 stolen from fetchcomms
4. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.
A: (Before I answer this question, I would just like to say that this is one of my favorite questions asked at RfA.)
  • Oppose – In SPI reports, user does not provide many diffs, only getting through with the report as fast as possible. Though you boast that you have over 17,000 edits, they are no doubt inflated due to being a member of WP:NFL, especially when editing the roster templates with every transaction. You only have one Good Article, and no Featured Articles, so I have concerns with your content contributions.
  • Thanks for the input. If this RfA does not pass, I will take your concerns to heart and try to improve upon them the best I can. With the SPI reports, I have been dealing with users like Timmy Polo and Gigogag for the better part of the past year. I know all of their editing habits and the styles of writing they use, and with each new sockpuppet, it's the same evidence. Therefore, I do not feel the need to write out a long, drawn out report with an excessive amount of diffs when the socks ultimately fail the duck test. If this RfA does pass, there will be no need to start up an SPI if I am confident it is a sock, because I would be able to block them myself. I agree, though, that my edit count is a little inflated, but my content contributions are mainly smaller and spread out among articles, instead of focusing on one article in particular.
Additional optional question from Alpha Quadrant
5. What are your thoughts on Administrator Recall? Would you be open to it?
A: I would absolutely be open to recall, because I feel that if the community is unhappy with my performance as an admin, I think they should have the opportunity to do something about it. Wikipedia is a community-effort, and if an admin is not a positive for the community, I think they should be re-evaluated.
Additional optional question from Jclemens
6. What is the difference between WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E? Give an example of each.
A: BLP1E applies to only articles about living people, while BIO1E applies to all biographies in general. An example of BLP1E would be "John Smith is a man who was jailed for assaulting the President." An example for BIO1E would be the example listed in question 9 below, which was "Bob A. Jones committed suicide on July 1, 2008 after his girlfriend broke up with him on Facebook."
Optional from Townlake
7. The term "net positive" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me at RFA. This term has a clear and unambiguous real world meaning, and a far different meaning among some Wikipedia users. Since you used this term in your self-nom, would you care to elaborate on what this term means to you? (Ideally without wiki-linking to anything.)
A: To me, the term "net positive" refers to a user who is an asset to the project with his/her edits. If they receive the mop, he/she will successfully block vandals and delete inappropriate pages as well.
Additional optional question from King of Hearts
8. Is there any case in which (a) an IP (b) a registered user can be blocked without any previous warnings? Answer the question for each type of user; if the answer is yes, list as many cases as you can think of.
A: Yes for both. They can be blocked for block or ban evasion, sockpuppetry, severe disruption, use of proxies, or legal threats.
9. An article on Bob A. Jones is nominated for deletion. He was a guy who committed suicide on July 1, 2008 after his girlfriend broke up with him on Facebook. This story received a lot of coverage in the The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other newspapers for much of the first half of July 2008. Using our policies and guidelines as a guide, what is the expected outcome of the discussion?
A: The outcome would be delete per WP:BIO1E, see question 6 as well.
Additional optional question from Bad edits r dumb
10. There are many types of admin, and they all have different styles and go about there admin duties in different ways. Who are some specific admins that you see as role models and you would like to emulate if you could?
A: I would have to say C.Fred, because whenever I run into him, he's always very helpful and polite, especially to new users.
Additional optional question from Gigs
11. You indicated you wanted to work at MfD, but I haven't noticed you around there much. What do you think about the current debate over whether userspace "Vandalism Sandboxes" should be deleted or not? What would you gauge the current community consensus regarding the application of this guideline to be? Don't feel pressured to agree with my position in the debate, I'm more interested in the steps you'd use to evaluate the situation.
A: I'm not a fan of the vandalism sandboxes, because it distracts from the purpose of the project and encourages vandalism. I think "vandalize here" subpages should be deleted, but editors should not go around nominating subpages for deletion just because they have certain words in the titles. A few weeks ago, I saw an editor nominating many subpages for deletion just because they had the word "Hidden" in them. Most of the pages he/she tagged were just sandboxes and tests. I think that guideline best represents my view on the vandalism sandboxes.
Three optional questions from Wifione ....... Leave a message, as I am not comfortable with your command of policy, although I believe you might apply it appropriately, as you're a good editor.
12. Does the term high profile individuals have any relevance with respect to BLPs/BIOs? Kindly give as exhaustive an explanation as you may deem fit?
A: High-profile individuals are, for the most part, notable for their involvement in at least one major event. Low-profile individuals are usually not notable and tend to have a minor role in a major event they are involved with.
13. You see a one-line BLP with a specific claim of notability that the individual was amongst the top ten persons to climb Mt. Everest. Can you still A7 this? If no, why? If yes, under what circumstances?
A: Can you please elaborate for "top ten persons"? Do you mean they are one of the first people to climb Mt. Everest, or they are one of the best to climb Mt. Everest?
Well, you get what you get. It's a one line BLP with the specific claim that is exactly as is written above. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot A7 this, because the importance of the person is already stated in the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eagles, thanks for the answers. While normally, you cannot A7 when a claim is made, you still can A7 this under some circumstances - specifically if you were to realise with reasonable research that the claim given in the BLP was not credible. Thanks again. Wifione ....... Leave a message
14. A new user called Hinda Laminton signs up and has only one contribution, which is to her user page, where she has added one paragraph of her profile of being a professional sports trainer; along with ten links to her personal website listing all her professional activities and the fees she charges. If you were an administrator, what would be your action on such a new user account? As mentioned above, please do give as exhaustive an explanation as you may deem fit. Thanks and sincerely, best wishes. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: The userpage is in violation of WP:UP#NOT for having promotional material and links. I would first welcome the user, and explain about Wikipedia's policy for userpages. I would kindly ask for the user to remove the content herself, but if she refuses, I would nominate the page for deletion at WP:MFD.
Partly right. The welcoming and providing explanation to the user are perfect. Not much of the rest Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. I don't see that the candidate is wrong per WP:UP#NOT, although I can see you'd like to argue that. Fine. But Wifione, you've been an admin for all of how many days now? I am not yet prepared to except you as the barometer for what is and is not "perfect" in an RfA (and I !voted for you). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn hi :) It's nothing as intense as that, and you don't need to 'except' me as the barometer (atmospheric pressure? why'd you want to do that anyway?). In general, an admin who sees clear cut promotional/advertising material would delete/blank out such pages. A non-admin would speedy the same. An MfD is not what (in general) would be done. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation excepted (sic). But still, in looking over the current contents of WP:MFD I do see multiple cases of WP:NOTRESUME and WP:NOTMYSPACE being cited in various User page discussions, and I'm not convinced that an Xfd would be so wrong as you make it out to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Groomtech
15. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: A single admin cannot ban a user from a page or topic without community consensus. The only exception to this would be general sactions. Because admins and non-admins are considered equal, with the only difference being the tools admins have, admins cannot bark out orders like they are superior to non-admins.
Question from WFC
16. Will we get to twenty questions?
A: Possibly it is plausible. Certainly it is definite.
Questions from Strange Passerby
17. What is your opinion on the now indefinitely-blocked user User:Bad edits r dumb's support (#18) below? Do you think it should be struck given the circumstances of Berd's block as a trolling-only account?
A: When users are banned from Wikipedia, their edits are required to be reverted, even in good-faith. Because BErD !voted before he was blocked, and since he was not banned, I do not think his support should be struck out.
18. To add to that, what is your opinion on good-faith, useful contributions from a user who is eventually found to be a sock of an indefinitely-banned user? Would you revert these contributions?
A: If the user is a sock of a banned user, then all of their edits should be reverted per WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting.
If I may comment here, as well, I agree with your answer. However, I did not find that to be the case in the wake of banned user Mac, who left a legacy of unreverted and undeleted categories, redirects, edits and such -- despite the fact that they were created in violation of multiple bans -- because many editors felt they wanted to retain the useful contributions (over my objections, in some cases). I think you might find your position on this issue challenged, should you attempt to act on it as an admin. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. What is your least favourite In your opinion, which is the least useful or effective policy or guideline, and why? If given the opportunity, how would you change it?
A: Honestly, I cannot find any policy here that I don't agree with. I have looked through WP:LOP and CAT:P, and I just can't say that I disagree with anything. Of course, if I did disagree with a policy, others would probably disagree as well, and it would not be a policy right now.
Additional optional question from Bwilkins
20. Follow-up question to Question 16: Do you believe that the responses to questions such as 16 provide additional information about the qualities of a candidate, or are they a waste of time? How, or how not?
A: I think they reveal that the candidate either likes humor, or is very serious on Wikipedia, depending on his/her answer. RfA is very serious, so it's nice to break the mold by having a little fun with the questions portion once in a while.
Additional questions from Efcmagnew (talk)
21. How has your opinon of Wikipedia changed since you started editing?
A. I have been using Wikipedia for the past five or six years to read about random facts, NFL players, etc. When I first registered over a year ago to create pages for Eagles players, I never thought that one day I could become an administrator on this website, because, frankly, I didn't know what an admin was. I always thought that Wikipedia was 99% reliable (and still do today), even though there are many skeptics out there. My opinion has basically been the same, but I have much more respect for the website now that I know what it takes to build it up.
22. Have you ever experienced the white-knuckled exhilaration of eating three bags of prunes?
A. How do I answer this question... hmmmm... 42?

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Beat ze nom support Wait, you are the nom. Oops. Anyways, I've seen you at SPI, and you are great. I love to be the first one to support. More content would be nice, but not that much of a biggie. Buggie111 (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support You sound like a great candidate! Mrmewe (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I think it's clear you can be trusted with the buttons. MtD (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict) Support per your excellent work at SPI. I'm sure you'll use the mop well. ~NerdyScienceDude 02:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good Track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Everything I've seen of him has been satisfactory. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Very good editor, wouldn't think twice about supporting this RfA. Pilif12p :  Yo  03:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I looked extensively into your more recent contributions and your most edited pages according to X's edit counter, and I found nothing but integrity in almost every direction I looked. You have tons of article contributions, lots of experience in sockpuppet discussions, at WP:AIV and WP:ANI, and you get along well with other editors. I happily lend you my support and I look forward to seeing you as a sysop. Nomader (Talk) 03:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Great work at SPI, would make a decent admin. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I think the editor will do a fine job. With my question answered I see no reason why not. --Alpha Quadrant talk 03:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I have interacted with Eagles from time to time and have no reason to object. Would've sworn you've been around longer. Grsz11 04:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. balance of evidence suggests should be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Strangely, I was just wondering a few hours ago if he was an administrator without even seeing this until now. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Competent and trustworthy. Glad to have you aboard as an admin. -- Ϫ 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. (edit conflict)Support Yes, Si. All goodintelati(Call) 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Stephen 05:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support To be honest, I was going to oppose this man because I thought he tried to have me blocked and said some bad things about me but then I looked at his contributions and this actually never happened and I may have got him confused with someone else who said bad things about me and tried to have me blocked and in fact he was good to me and he LET ME KEEP MY BARNSTAR when he closed the deletion discussion in a competent manner but this is not why I am supporting him, i am supporting him because he is a GOOD EDITOR and he know all the policy. :-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above user has been blocked indefinitely and I suggest this !vote be indented. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone the strikeout/indentation. The editor was indefinitely blocked after the !vote. This !vote isn't a violation of a ban, nor was this editor a sockpuppet. We don't normally indent votes in cases like these, if you look at the other RfA running right now, there is an editor who was even blocked for the very behavior that was the heart of their oppose !vote, yet the !vote wasn't indented. If this !vote should be discounted, a 'crat can make that determination. -- Atama頭 21:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - why not? :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:29pm • 06:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: User knows what he is doing, give the dude a mop. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support 9 DYKs and a good article. Well done, and good luck with the tools. Minimac (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Support candidate has more than adequate experience and tenure plus a clean blocklog. Still a little quick off the mark when tagging articles for deletion, I saw one or two tags in the first few minutes of a new article where we will never now know what the contributors second save would have brought us, and one A7 tag where I would have thought the line "SHE IS VERY STUBBORN AND EVIL." merited a G10. But I think you've become sufficiently less trigger happy than a couple of months ago for me to be in this column. ϢereSpielChequers 09:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for my own reference, what was the article you are referring to that said "SHE IS VERY STUBBORN AND EVIL"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't quote the article name online without linking the attack with the person attacked, but I've emailed a link to you and I'm sure you'll be able to see it in a few days. There was a whole paragraph of A7 type stuff before that sentence - if it had only contained that line and you'd tagged it A7 I would have been much more concerned. ϢereSpielChequers 16:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Other folk here have highlighted various good work. When I browsed through random old edits, I didn't find anything bad at all. So, why not? bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. What?! You mean you aren't an admin already? Well you should be... Alzarian16 (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Looks good to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Of course --Inka888 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support—excellent editor. Airplaneman ✈ 14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Candidate undid my change to Mike Bell but I will not hold that against him. Keepscases (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support His work really does seem exemplary. Excellent online demeanour, civil and level-headed. Most deserving. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Good football editor Secret account 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Well-rounded user. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Been waiting for this. Tommy! 19:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. A scan of the contributions (eg speedy deletion tags) indicates that the candidate is very much qualified. Thank you for putting yourself forward. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support TNXMan 19:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: Has a lot of edits. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good enough for me. I appreciate his plain-talking style. Gigs (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support -I've seen the editor at AFD a few times nominating football articles for deletion. Good work. Derild4921☼ 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support wiooiw (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Connormah (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - Yeoman editor, high-quality article work, reviewer, rollbacker, new page patroller, etc. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Excellent user, very knowledgeable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I edit a lot of (American) football articles, so I've seen this editor around. Will handle the mop wisely... VictorianMutant (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support enthusiastic and spirited editor. Shiva (Visnu) 02:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Per my RFA rationale. MJ94 (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive; in fact, with all due respect to those who posted the questions, I am not quite certain just what Q6 and Q7 were driving at, or what answers would have better satisfied the questioners. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Seen him around a bit, should be fine. The opposition has me a bit confused, and I have no idea what the proper answer to #6 would be. As to the content concerns, Mike Kafka isn't exactly FA material but it isn't too shabby, either; it's not like the guy has never touched an article before. AlexiusHoratius 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support User shows clue, and while the answer to question 6 is fairly bad, I see nothing here that convinces me Eagles247 will abuse the tools. AniMate 05:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support a capable candidate. The questions are crap it follows that his answers are similarly shitty. Those who oppose this candidate should go and lick the pavement. Bah! Crafty (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I'm generally as strict as they come, and will continue to maintain high RfA standards in future. But seriously, a well-rounded RfA candidate potentially failing for underplaying the difference between BLP1E and BIO1E during the 16-question-and-counting gauntlet? That would be a travesty. —WFC— 07:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Should do just fine. Pichpich (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Absolutely. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support as overall broadly experienced candidate. I found nothing in his contribs that convinced me he would be anything but a "net-positive" with the tools."  Begoon•talk 11:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. No brainer based on extensive record. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support- sure, why not? User seems to have a lot of clue. Reyk YO! 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support While his answer to Q6 is overly simplified, the effective difference between the two policies is a fine example of Wikipedia instruction creep and hair-splitting. A well-rounded candidate with a reasonable amount of content creation who will do well. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No reason to think theyll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Having interacted with this user a number of times I seeno reason why you should not be anadmin. Corruptcopper (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Of course! Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Lack of article contributions as an opposition rationale doesn't hold any water in this instance as it is false. User has written a good article, several DYK's, and many B and C Class articles. Can't find a reason to oppose at this time. Vodello (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Good overall experience and although their answers to the questions could be more in-depth, they seem to have a good general grounding in policy. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per WFC and what I've seen of him in various areas of the project. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I've seen this editor around doing some very good work. I just read BLP1E and BIO1E and I honestly cannot figure out the difference. I'm sure this user will make good use of admin tools and have the good sense to keep his finger off the button when dealing with areas outside his expertise. --LordPistachio talk 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Seems to have plenty of WP:CLUE - contributions across the place, and I agree with NYB in respect of Q6. White Shadows almost farcial "Utter lack of content contributions with the exception of one GA" is an embarrassingly poor oppose I'm afraid to say. Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support His head is screwed on right. Courcelles 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Absolutely. I've seen you grow from a new user to a potential admin in such a short time period, it's made me happy to see that somebody who I've helped learn the "hang" of editing NFL-related articles and templates has become such a respected user here. Having known you over the past few years makes this an easy decision; yes. Good luck with the "tools".--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Definitely deserving.--Yankees10 01:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Quite impressed with Eagles' interactions with other editors, general temperament and policy knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strongest possible support. Helpful, mature and a real asset to the project. I can't imagine a better admin. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - I did a detailed review of Eagles' contributions several months ago and was impressed with his involvement with WP:ADOPT. A very cordial and helpful person that has respect for new users. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Knows what he's doing, interacts well, content work is well sourced. No problems here Jebus989✰ 07:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support No concerns. Polargeo (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Don't agree with the opposition, particularly the contradictary commentary in one of them. Otherwise looks fine. Aiken (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. 'Support Broad set of skills, good communication. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Overall I see a lot of very good reasoning and clue from this person. A reasonable amount of work in non-article space, and some very respectable article contributions (the GAs and DYKs in particular). I also see very good interaction skills which are a big plus. -- Atama頭 17:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - not worried about anything the opposers bring up. :pepper 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. I actually thought the candidate was an admin already - shows how much I pay attention. In this case, I think adminship would be a Net Positive to the project - and, in this context, I use the term Net Positive to mean that the candidate will screw something up at some point, but that the positive work done by the candidate will far outweigh any possible (and normal) human error that might creep into the admin work. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Lukewarm support. The opposers' points are, on the whole, not invalid. However, at the end of the day, I think he would be more use to Wikipedia with a mop and the benefits of giving him one outweigh any mistakes we think he might make. I'm sure he'll take the opposers' comments on board and seek advice when he's unsure. Best of luck, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support The candidate is very familiar from the football footnoting project. He's a top-drawer editor who will make a top-drawer administrator.--Hokeman (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support (moved from oppose) I made a rather weak and ill-guided oppose at first. Having looked over Eagles' contribs again, I see no reason to withhold the mop. Sorry for my initial oppose and the weak rational to it Eagles, good luck. All the best,--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support No objections. Efcmagnew (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - trustworthy editor. IMHO the opposes are somewhat nitpicky. PhilKnight (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Absolutely! Nolelover 16:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Excellent candidate. One two three... 16:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. An outstanding editor, has been a key contributor to Wikipedia's coverage of American football. I see no reason why he would not make excellent use of administrator tools.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Really seems to know what he is doing, key contributor. Best of luck, looks like you've got it! Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Nice contribs :) --Addihockey10 19:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Seen Eagles around quite bit the past few months, seems like a very solid candidate for the mop. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Of course! Gfoley4 | Need to chat? My track record 21:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Looks ok to me - Happysailor 21:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. T. Canens (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Conditional support per his one and a half years' worth of activity. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. What is the condition? Ucucha 23:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support: Some concerns but I believe him to be a net positive. He will become a great admin as he uses his tools and gains hands on experiance. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Unconditional support. Per what I've written in the oppose section, and per 97 editors above (leave one). Wifione ....... Leave a message 01:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support – Have seen only good work from this editor. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - Eagles247 has the right demeanor, attention to detail, and willingness to listen that all good administrators need. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - Eagles247 is one of the nicest people I've seen on here. He's helped me many times when I needed it. He knows all the rules, has a clean record, and I've never seen him lose his cool. What more could you want? RevanFan (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support No reason to oppose --NotedGrant Talk 11:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Good contributions and a great editor Peter.C • talk 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support You definitely deserve the mop. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 21:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - I don't see any problems here, you can be trusted with the tools. ♠ 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support You have been active for only a couple of months with this much constructive edits! More than half of your edits are article edits. I don't seem why not be admin. You deserve to be an admin. Hope you be one. ActivExpressionTalkGuestbook 00:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, excellent editor with good grasp of policy, very good attitude...will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 03:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - seems to be a solid editor who knows what he's doing. :) Cordially, → Clementina [ Scribble ] 06:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Weak support - Lacks content contributions, but seems well intentioned, which is prob enough. I not most of the supporters have colourdy fancy sigs, which usually sets off alarm bells, but, eh, good luck to you anyway. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Hard-working active editor that really deserves the mop. Well deserved. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support: most points have been covered, but I was particularly impressed with the candidate's responses to the various questions asked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. A solid candidate. ceranthor 12:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Why not? I think he would be a great admin. Nations United (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Loving your work! gonads3 19:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Nobody knows all the rules, and an occasional mis-tagging is not the end of the world.- we all make mistakes. What impressed me most was the extraordinary low percentage of automated edits. --Kudpung (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Saebvn (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. A net positive to the project.  7  04:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Pile-on support at this point. SPI needs fresh blood: though the candidate's contribs to SPI aren't as high as I might have expected, the work there seems sound. The oppose argument above was weak: candidate has two good articles. The oppose argument below (BLP1E/BIO1E) is a relatively minor concern: I'm assuming that the candidate now knows more about the two than many of us ;-) TFOWR 08:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. 120 Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - I recently realized I've seen Eagles around for quite a while. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - A capable choice...Modernist (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - I'm going to pile on here, which given the candidate's interests, seems apt. Best wishes for your adminship! Jusdafax 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - He would be an excellent addition, although the idea of eagles circling my head 24/7 is quite odd... =P Netalarmtalk 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - The candidate is clearly a very productive editor who's very knowledgeable of the various policies. I've seen him work hard every day, and I knew it was only a matter of time before this RfA appeared. With that said, I don't see why he shouldn't be trusted with the mop. Keep up the good work, Eagles! --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Q7. Under any definition, "net positive" implies not always positive. The answer the candidate gave was really the only wrong answer possible, and regrettably reads like just writing what the masses want to hear. If adminship was simply about telling people what they want to hear, designated sysops wouldn't be necessary. Townlake (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. I just want to clarify that all of my answers to the above questions are honest. I see no need to "appeal to the masses," as you said, because I think my edits speak for themselves. I'm sorry that you have to oppose, but I nonetheless respect your decision. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore that, Eagles, in the real world you tell people what they want to hear. That's how it works. Not saying that anyone should be "fake" but there's a fine line between being fake and polite; I just want to comment that there's nothing wrong with saying you're a net positive, because you are. Tommy! 01:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what if his answer to that question was bad, does it mean anything in the long run? It's his opinion and he is entitled to his opinion. I second what Tommy says. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:15pm • 09:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It means he prefers not to acknowledge his imperfections, and says things for the sake of placating people. And I don't live in the same world Tommy does - if I simply told people what they want to hear in my job, I would quickly be fired. Townlake (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fails to acknowledge his imperfections? You say that as if you were without fault. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:43am • 00:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Zing. Townlake (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Zing? It just goes to show how blind you are to the good this user has contributed. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 1:03pm • 03:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ever want a real full time job or even a part time job, yes you will tell the interviewer what they want to hear from a candidate, but I won't question your rationale. Tommy! 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose fails to appropriately understand the differences I'm getting at in Q6. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea the answer to question 6 is plain confusing and wrong, and shows lack of experience, and may bring this RFA down. I was thinking of changing my vote because of it, but he won't abuse the tools if he doesn't grasp one policy well, nobody in this project is perfect. Secret account 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got to admit that was a pretty bad answer, it ignores the importance of respecting the privacy of low-profile individuals (which I think is what you were getting at, Jclemens). Not enough to change my !vote but at least something that Eagles247 should consider in the future. -- Atama頭 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose (for now) Utter lack of content contributions with the exception of one GA. (I know that crats tend to ignore this as a rational) Q6 is a bit iffy here as well and you don't seem to be active in MFDs despite the fact that you claim you want to work in them. I will rarely support an editor who wishes to work in AFDs if they themselves do not have a decent history in working in the mainspace rather than behind the sceens. Remember, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary."--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So 9 DYKs means nothing? Tommy! 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea and a 1 GA is more than most adminstrator candidates. Secret account 02:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for piling on here, but I would also like to point out (I forgot to add this to the nomination, I guess), that I have several B- and C-class articles that can probably become GAs if I nominate them. See 2007 Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens football team, Kevin Kolb, A. J. Wallace (American football), 2010 Philadelphia Eagles season and Kevin Newsome. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Utter lack of content contributions with the exception of one GA" - It's rather unfortunate that people do not bother to support their argument with fact. —Dark 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I now have two GAs (Kevin Kolb just passed GAR). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Utter lack" .... - perhaps White Shadows would like to look at wikitionary so that he/she can sharpen themselves. My carpet has an utter lack of gold ingots, and my apple tree an utter lack of prime stilton. Meanwhile I have an utter lack of red wine with the exception of one full glass - oh look I do have some after all.......... Pedro :  Chat  20:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WS, some GA's aren't easy to write, templateable ones. Buggie111 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the first Wikipedia user that will oppose a candidate for this reason, but this candidate's contributions to expanding Wikipedia are far greater than past candidates that have had this problem. "Utter lack of content contributions" holds no water in this RFA. Vodello (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. While we've had stronger candidates, this is not a part of my oppose rationale, even though I'm far from hesitant to oppose on such a basis. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eagles247 is actually a good contributor in articles. That said, I should like to see a perfect command of policies/guidelines that an administrator would use. Would he abuse the tools in the future? Not knowingly I presume. Eagles does say he knows all policies by heart. I suspect that's not true, given his simplistic answer to Que.6. Or perhaps he believes he knows the policies/guidelines, but is not applying them appropriately. He would surely be prone to making mistakes, given my perception that he's not comfortable at all with certain critical policies' application. I'm much more interested in understanding whether Eagles realises the areas that he might have gone wrong while answering some questions above. To that effect, my oppose vote can be changed easily by Eagles. Firstly, I should prefer seeing Eagles clarifying his views on Que 6 above. It'll be good if he adds to the answer he has provided in Que.6 and corrects his answer, if he believes he's got it wrong or incomplete. Secondly, I shall await his replies to my questions. If I am satisfied that the answers are dot on the mark, my oppose vote will change pronto. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a perfect command of policies/guidelines too. Please tell me when you find it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:) The muffin is surely not subtle :) You might actually have a point Panyd. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indenting oppose and adding to support, per clarification provided by Eagles247 to me (and of course, as per Atama and HJ Mitchell, whose comments should have been enough for me to change my oppose vote before the close of this RfA; Eagles247's clarification went over all that and was more than enough) Wifione ....... Leave a message 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Lack of content contributions don't bother me so much. But I was rather confused by some of the answers to the questions. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, I'd be interested in the candidate's answers to my questions... it's fair to say the answers will help me make up my mind. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice to candidate: I have slightly refactored question 19. StrPby (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been suggested I clarify my view, so to clarify: the answers to my questions have failed to sway me either way, hence am remaining neutral. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 07:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category