Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eequor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Eequor

final (13/17/6) ending 06:34, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

4000 mainspace edits and 8100 total edits as of October 10, been here since March 2004. I believe she is deserving of adminship. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

I gratefully accept. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 04:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To my supporters, thank you for your votes; to my opponents, thank you for voicing your concerns. I hope to be less controversial next time. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 07:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:46, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  2. See no reason to oppose. Eequor's comments on the link Kate provided were right on target. Gzornenplatz 13:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Looks quite constructive, I see no evidence to the contrary in fact, especially contribs to reference desk and so. Very decent admin material from my quick look through contribs. Oh yeah, and TINC! ;-) Kim Bruning 19:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support! --Sonjaaa 08:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Obviously not going to succeed this time. Opposers below appear confused. They should read more Karl Popper - Xed 19:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Eequor makes useful contributions to articles, and has responded clearly and politely to the concerns raised by objectors here. Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Eequor may be insane, but does that nessecarily mean Eequor is insane? Anyhow, support on the basis that while Eequor has done some somewhat questionable things, they've mostly just been too hyped up. For example, what Raul said about what Eequor said about rules is a typical thing one might expect to hear from a stodgy sysop who has spent too much time enforcing rules, but really what Eequor said is in complete agreement with Wikipedia policy and it should be recognised that we are meant to obey the SPIRIT of the rules, and not to follow them to the letter - thus good contributors don't get banned for repeat vandalism if they can offer up a good explanation (if they revert it themselves, nobody usually pursues action against them). Good job Eequor. --Node 19:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Eequor is a multitalented editor who usually uses her powers for good. :) If she is granted adminship and then abuses it, I will be the first to start an RfC on her, but I don't think she would do that. func(talk) 21:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Thought she was one already. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. I see absolutely nothing this user has done that would justify the cruel words being levelled at her. VeryVerily 10:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. She's a little quirky, a little different... all the more reason to support. Andre (talk) 22:37, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  12. The "rules" are not a substitute for using your head and embracing the spirit of the place. Too many people here use the "rules" to browbeat other users instead of as a means of facilitating a great encyclopaedia. Let's have more admins who believe that fighting for a great encyclopaedia is more important than fighting for the status quo.Dr Zen 07:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Although Eequor and I have had disagreements in the past, a variety of viewpoints is useful for the wiki. Support this nomination. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. I see: No respect for authority. Completely opposed to everything I believe in. Sanity questionable. I'm surprised Eequor isn't admin already. -- DavidCary 17:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. —No-One Jones (m) 06:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Netoholic @ 06:47, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC) -- Disapprovize.
  3. [1] — Kate Turner | Talk 06:48, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
    And verily, I did laugh out loud. - Vague Rant 06:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
    Developer involvement on a WikiMedia bug report page sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not sure why you listed it in the Oppose section. Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    Read what Eequor actually insinuates. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I'm hesitant to read too much into insinuations, since I'm necessarily just guessing about them, but it looks as though she's suggesting that a lack of developer involvement there means that one of two things must be the case. Either no development work is being done, and therefore the page "should be deleted to discourage users from wasting their time", or development work is done in a private, secret way, which would make that page "essentially a façade to maintain the illusion of community involvement without the fact of it." Is that what you're talking about, or have I missed something? Factitious 07:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Not a chance. RickK 06:52, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  5. No. - Vague Rant 06:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Not a constructive user. --Slowking Man 07:00, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  7. This just about says it all about Eequor - "Clearly strict adherence to the "rules" is a naïve and insular position" [2] →Raul654 07:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
    Adminship requires that the user show good judgement. The good news is that it can be developed over time. The bad news is the time has not yet come to pass. Shane King 07:51, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
    Interestingly, that quote seems to be in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    Absolutely it is. Anyone with life experience knows that nearly all rules can and should have exceptions. For instance, take Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which telling someone to "grow up" might qualify for. VeryVerily 10:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Amen to most above opinions. •→Iñgólemo←• 08:07, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
  9. What target did Eequor hit, exactly? Let's see - she makes out that in a massive project like Wikipedia, the fact that the cabal can't be everywhere at once is proof that there is a cabal. You just have to love the rhetorical skills that allow someone to prove the existence of a thing by its absence. I'm sure that kind of logic would greatly simplify the long-running dispute over Atheism. --Michael Snow 17:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Huh? The argument is very simple. If the developers are not responsive on a page designed for community feedback to the developers, this suggests they are ignoring the community and making decisions on their own. Pretty clear. I have no idea if what she says is true, but it does not warrant this kind of abusive mockery. I'm disappointed in you. VeryVerily 10:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Well, this discussion has digressed into an argument only tangentially related to Eequor's qualifications for adminship. My sarcasm was a rhetorical flourish in response to Gzornenplatz's argument, which was unnecessary and I apologize. Discussing the developers further is a bit off-topic, but I agree with Kate's points below, and would add that if the developers have to constantly talk back to the community instead of mostly listening to it, they'll never have time to actually get any developing done. --Michael Snow 18:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    The target is the unresponsiveness and secretiveness of the developers. A small group that co-opts new members by itself without community involvement is a cabal in my book. Kate knows this best - he somehow managed to become a developer after being here for barely 3 months, before he even was a sysop (pretending to be female may have helped, I guess). Gzornenplatz 22:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
    I'm not "pretending to be female" any more than User:Lucky 6.9 is pretending to be a car. To suggest that Tim gave me shell access because he thought I was female when he knew my real name is ridiculous and insulting to him.
    The very top of the m:MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports page says "Bugs in MediaWiki should always be reported at MediaZilla to make sure they aren't lost or forgotten," in bold; below that it says "for emergency problems on Wikipedia & sister projects, try to contact the developers by IRC". I don't see how anyone is being unresponsive or secret by not immediately responding to comments on a page which gives pretty clear instructions about where one should be posting in order for one's comments not to be missed. — Kate Turner | Talk 00:47, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
  10. I cannot see a possible justification for that comment for someone that would be fitting for the role of an administrator. -- Grunt   ҈  17:43, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
    But "Yo, fucktard. Take your cute, little, fluffy doggie and stick him where the sun don't shine. Get a life, buttbleed." is fine? [3] 216.155.74.28 04:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    No, it isn't. My utter stupidity in posting that comment, repeat vandal or not, cost me an adminship. - Lucky 6.9 22:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    That isn't the point. The issue is that Grunt had no problems voting in favor of potential administrators who, for example, frequently use insulting and profane laguage towards other Wikipedia users. But, G-d forbid, anyone dare challenge the Wikipedia power structure. Insult all you like, but in this world, challenging the Wikipedia status quo is "[not] fitting for the role of an administrator." 216.155.74.28 15:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Respectfully, that is the point. As Geogre pointed out, I was "screaming" in frustration at an anonymous vandal, not a registered user. Was it wrong in the larger scheme of things? Given the fact that my, uh, rancor is preserved in the edit history leads me to say yes. I have had exactly four moderate fallings-out with registered users only after attempts at reason failed. I didn't simply pull the trigger and cut loose with a tirade after the first disagreement. At the tender age of 43, I hope I'm not that immature and impulsive. I'm pleased to say that we "passed the peace pipe" each and every time. I have no animosity toward any regular user at present and I intend to keep it that way. - Lucky 6.9 02:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. While I believe I've shared some of her view points in the past, Eequor took a possible hoax about a Bulgarian radiant leak from the reference desk, and put it as front page news today. Not responsible. -- user:Zanimum
    Now that that objection has been met with below, do you still oppose adminship? Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  12. I'd really like to support because I think complaints about her fixation with the "cabal" are silly, but editing "In the News" to repeat an user's heretofore baseless claims is reckless. Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. I normally dont interfere on this things but this edit on Elagabalus(note the recategorization) makes me wonder about Leah Q's sanity (with all due respect) and her use as a sysop. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 08:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    As I have stated elsewhere, there is considerable evidence that Elagabalus was likely to be at least transgendered. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 08:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    What about it causes you to question her sanity? I've heard about Heliogabalus being transgendered before. If there's evidence for it, there's no need to avoid mentioning it on Wikipedia. Factitious 08:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    I am not denying the relevance of recent studies concerning Elagabalus' sexuality - that's why Leah Q's reference was not removed. However, wondering about he preferred to be treated as a she is speculation; in my view wikipedia is not a repository of speculations. As for categorizing the boy as a Roman empress is, to say the least, absurd. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 09:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. I'd missed that — I thought the category you were talking about was the "Transgender-related topics" one. Factitious 11:25, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  14. A lot of fine pharmacological work but also a lot of bias against traditionalist religion (a POV forcefully stated on her userpage). JFW | T@lk 08:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I don't see how religious views have any bearing on adminship. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 08:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    That's not the point. The point is that there have been POV wars on religious topics with you as a participant. JFW | T@lk 15:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    POV is OK on user pages, but articles are another matter. Michael Hardy 01:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    It's the displaying of this POV during editing I'm referring to. JFW | T@lk 19:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. No --Mrfixter 03:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. CheeseDreams 11:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. I'm surprised no one has cited Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, a proposed policy with which I agree very much. Such inanity as listing rambot articles on VFD is counterproductive, and not the way one should start discussion on the matter. — Dan | Talk 13:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I agree with this policy as well, but it explicitly refers to actions which really are intended to cause disruption. Parody and breaching experiments allude to the point while demonstrating its opposite. The Rambot VfD is not an example of this; I stated my purpose clearly and directly without suggesting I had anything else in mind. It has never been my intent to disrupt Wikipedia. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 23:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I've decided to remove my opposition, as really my concern was over the way Eequor has caused other people to react to her, not her behaviour per se. Therefore it's probably unfair of me to oppose. I think one day Eequor will make a good admin, although I think time (as in heals all wounds) will need to pass first. Shane King 07:37, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. the stuff linked to above would make me tend towards 'object', but I haven't researched well enough to really be comfortable with a negative vote (and the cause seems doomed, anyway). I suppose the ideal admin is a much more boring person (janitor) than Eequor. dab 08:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Um... I run into Eequor's edits quite a bit, and I've always found them to be good. There are a number of people who are opposing her for whom I have a great deal of respect, so I'm withholding a support vote until I can get a handle on the nature of the opposing viewpoint. func(talk) 14:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. I'm only responding here because my vote was solicited on my user page. I do not normally participate in these votes, and do not intend to start now. Most of my recent work has been on other projects to the extent that I have not followed the behaviour of any candidate on Wikipedia to a sufficient extent to be able to cast a vote on his/her suitability as an admin on this project. Eclecticology 18:40, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
  4. Lst27 (talk) 23:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. I think we need to try hard to get many different points of view among administrators, however I am hesitant in supporting this particular user due to reasons which I will not mention here for fear of being offensive. anthony 警告 03:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    What's the subject of your concern, if not the details? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 06:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    It's already been adequetely alluded to above. anthony 警告 13:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I also am somewhat concerned with your "intention to act in the best interests of Wikipedia, whatever they appear to be." It is my opinion that admins should act only with the consensus support of the community, not based on whatever they happen to think is best. anthony 警告 16:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Eequor does seem intelligent, but has also appeared gratuitously belligerent. It doesn't seem like mere tempermental hotheadedness. See User talk:Eequor/vs. MIT. She wants to claim to have defeated MIT in an argument and make an issue of the matter. The fact that her argument lacks merit doesn't help either. Michael Hardy 01:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I claim nothing of the sort. That page's name was what I felt to be most fitting, since you cited the institution. I have no intentions of belligerence; personally, that allegation struck me as "gratuitous belligerence" and rather put me off to the whole discussion. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 02:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I find it ironic that several of those casting opposition votes recently voted in favor of a nominee who told a fellow editor: "Yo, fucktard. Take your cute, little, fluffy doggie and stick him where the sun don't shine. Get a life, buttbleed." just weeks before his nomination. [4] While Eequor may be high-strung at times, I've never seen her use profanity or be abusive to wikipedians. Behavior like this strongly suggests that the wikicabal is alive and well. 216.155.74.28 02:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Did you bother, in that case, to investigate the "editor" to whom it was said? Did you look at the context at all? Did you just see a dirty word and set your jaw and decide that it was proof of a conspiracy? Just wondering. The "victim" of that insult was a vandal, not an editor, who had been going through chopping up articles (otherwise known as vandalism). The "editor" was spoken to three times with gentle warnings, pleading, entreaties. The "editor" did not respond and continued to deface pages. The user who used the profanity could not block the vandal, not being an admin, and screamed -- though very likely not where the vandal would ever see it, since the vandal wasn't exactly responding to other talk page notes. Just so you know. N.b. I have not voted on Eequor, but I do think the nomination of every single Rambot article on VfD was a bit childish. Geogre 15:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is a misrepresentation. I had actually asked for the deletion of articles about towns having fewer than about 1,000 inhabitants which had been produced solely by Rambot. Of course I was not seriously expecting them to be deleted; I was trying to draw attention to the inferior quality of articles produced by Rambot, and to encourage discussion about whether Rambot should be used at all. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 22:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I understand the desire to draw attention to the articles, but I didn't like having an overloaded VfD get bogged down further. I am not voting, however, as I honestly haven't had enough interaction to form an opinion. (I would far have preferred a Village Pump discussion of Rambot or a namespace vote with lots of publicizing of it and then, if there were a consensus there, reporting to VfD or the mailing list or something. Like I said, though, I'm not taking a position on admin qualities.) Geogre 02:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My, this all seems to be going about as I thought it might.
I'm confused by the suggestion that I have a special interest in the Cabal, and I don't remember ever saying it can't be everywhere at once. Naturally that would be a very specious argument.
My concern about MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports was the fact that the notice at the top appeared to be insufficient for a large number of users, whose comments were being ignored. As the developers obviously know the page exists and is being used, they should accept its presence and check back once in a while rather than pretend it isn't there. Completely ignoring the page demonstrates a profound lack of interest in working with the larger community.
Regarding Template:In the news and the 2004 Bulgaria radiation leak, I feel that recklessness is appropriate on certain occasions, especially if it may save lives. I would like to point out that I reverted the template exactly once. I do not feel this is in any way relevant to an adminship vote, as admin powers would not have changed my actions. Please see my comments at User talk:Eequor#Radiation_leak, which my detractors have not, in twelve hours, had the courtesy to respond to.
Concerning the baseless assertion that I am unconstructive, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Village Pump discussion and consider the number of admins who are less constructive. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 04:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Clearly. The message is: Don't criticize Wikipedia is you want to be an admin. Only yes-men will do - Xed 19:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Criticism is not the problem. She just isn't ready to have extra responsiblity, she's purely reactionary it seems. The News is what does it for me. -- user:zanimum
For what it's worth, my favorite objection here is Raul654's, which should be quite funny if one understands why. His statement is completely accurate, but should be so obviously true as to be not worth mentioning. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 05:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To those of my opponents who are concerned about Template:In the news, I would like to draw your attention to the shutdown of the Number 4 Rivno nuclear reactor in the Ukraine on November 4. Rivno is quite close to Romania; it is entirely likely that a Romanian border guard might have heard about the incident and passed on the information. Although the reactor is not actually in Bulgaria, I believe this demonstrates that my concern about a possible radiation leak in the area was not unfounded. [5]

Concerns
I am aware that certain of my opponents have personal dislikes for me that have existed even before I had met them, first expressed by them in a rude comment. As far as I have been able to tell, all were due to their failure to assume good faith. I feel that I deserve to know why I am disliked; this is a good time to make your opinions known. I ask that voters please leave grudges on talk pages. In alphabetical order (feel welcome to add your name and your concern):

I did not express a "personal dislike" of you. I do not like your one-word, "l33tspeak", made-up-word, inaccurate edit summaries. They are nigh-useless, and you've been asked repeatedly to avoid that. -- Netoholic @ 15:29, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
I have never written edit summaries in l33tspeak. o_o
Are you confusing me with User:D3h 3l33t (484I r00lz, whom I note on my user page? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 22:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know you know what I mean. Phrases like " dephrenologize, consistencize, Dürize, bulletize, deallergize Infoboxize", and my favorite, "Vandalize" are useless. They confuse anyone looking at your contribs, or seeing them come up on watchlists. -- Netoholic @ 22:28, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Okay, summaries of that nature I'll admit to. I'd like to point out that most of them should be easy to understand from a glance at the history. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 22:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
LOL! May I use some of those? Especially consistencize, I like it! func(talk) 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*grin*
I'm glad to know somebody else likes them. ^_^ --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 06:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Consistencize isn't bad, but Dürize is better. My only concern is whether this makes Eequor a Dürerist. Isomorphic 17:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since I have been asked to comment specifically on Eequor, I will take the opportunity to do so, in the hopes that she will improve her behavior in the future. The first time I encountered her, she was complaining on talk:main page that the featured article on that day (Holy prepuce) was inappropriate based on logic so flimsy it would blow down in a soft breeze (that because we don't allow gentical names in user name, that we shouldn't have articles on the main page on the subject). Later, she became petulant and childish. The next time I encountered her, it was because she repeatedly made nominations on the featured article candidates and made no attempt to fix any of the objections. Naturally, they (the nominations) all failed. I dropped a message on her talk page, reminding her that the page rules say if you nominate something, you are expected to make an effort to fix objections. She became extremely rude. Come to find out, this is not the first time she has User talk:Eequor/vs. MIT|acted this way]. Then, later I found out that she had pulled at least one childish stunt - nominating all the rambot articles on the VFD. Eequor has made some good contributions, but all this leads me to conclude that she has a (demonstrable) total inability to work well with others. Working well with others is the #1 trait we should look for in potential admins, and she is definitely not it. →Raul654 21:37, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • The remainder of the main page discussion is worth reading, particularly the initial comments from Raul654 and Eloquence. [6] [7] I think most people would consider those comments rude and would be unlikely to respond to them politely.
I'm still surprised that only one other person found the selection to be in poor taste. It's reasonable to feature, say, exploding whale; it would be quite different to feature an article about the whale's venerated anatomy. One doesn't expect to find such subjects on the front page of any encyclopedia, online or not.
And I'm bemused to find that some people take my user page more seriously than I do. I have a strong interest in comparative religion and a stronger interest in the neutral point of view; it would be remarkably silly for me to have any interest in censoring religious topics. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see why the rules for the featured article page should be such a big deal. Featured article status is not an endpoint; it's only a state of elevated recognition. Lots of articles are found to be inadequate for such recognition; why should two more be worth noting? Most of all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates gets well-written articles the attention they deserve.
I would consider the act of nominating the articles to have accomplished exactly what you say I did not -- fixing the objections. Following my nomination of sewage treatment, for example, there were a number of edits in a very short period of time. I'd rather point out a good article and then stay out of the way, than to pretend I have ownership; and I'd rather ignore a useless guideline than leave a good article in stasis.
That discussion is still on my talk page; would you care to explain the disrespectful tone you adopted following my attempts to hold a polite conversation? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • And, as I've noted before, I wasn't expecting the Rambot articles to all be deleted, much less the over-the-top reactions to my suggestion. In my opinion, some Wikipedians would do well to cultivate a sense of humor (please note the irony here). --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (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. I am familiar with the pages on the reading list and with the capabilities of admins, I have experimented with an installation of MediaWiki, and I understand that adminship is not an especially big deal. I expect I would help out with maintenance issues here and there, occasionally roll back vandalism, and possibly help with speedy deletion candidates. It is my intention to act in the best interests of Wikipedia, whatever they appear to be.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I try not to get attached to articles. A few recent examples, however, are ultimate fate of the Universe and Satyendra Nath Bose. An older example is Template:RD header, which has not changed significantly since I wrote it. Also see my other contributions to the reference desk.
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. The majority of Wikipedians encounter some conflicts. I try to avoid it and the stress it causes, but of course that is not always possible. I don't feel this is the place to discuss users who have caused me stress.
I approach arguments in a calm, reasoned, and respectful manner, and I expect others to do the same. I do not target specific users, ever, and, as noted above, I simply do not use profanity (and find it appalling that there could be support for the previous nominee). I will defend other users with exactly the politeness their aggressors deserve.[8]
Particularly exasperating discussions can be found at User talk:Eequor/vs. MIT (from Talk:empty product) and User talk:Eequor/Zealotry.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Eequor_a085.html"