Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eequor (2nd)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Eequor

final (45/16/14) ending 00:15 24 June 2005 (UTC)

Eequor joined Wikipedia on March 7, 2004, and since that time has amassed nearly 12,200 edits. She works in numerous article areas, and in particular has made extraordinary contributions to the WikiProjects on chemicals and on drugs. She has also made very fine contributions in the Image, Category, and Template namespaces. In short, she is a very fine all-around Wikipedian.

Now, the issue that I must bring up here is that this is Eequor's second nomination for adminship, with this being her first, from 7 months ago. A number of Wikipedians brought up issues that they had had with some of Eequor's actions from before that time. In the interest of full disclosure, I encourage everyone who would wish to vote here to read through the first nomination. It was highly contentious and became heated, not to mention somewhat tangential to the actual vote itself.

However, I would now ask that you carefully examine Eequor's edits during the 7 months since that nomination came to a close. I believe the primary issues raised were with Eequor's abilities to work with others and with what some perceived to be issues of maturity. It is my contention that in the 7 months since the last nomination, Eequor has met the high bar that one would expect for a potential administrator.

Note: I was very hesitant to make this re-nomination, because of the potential for a repeat of the heated nature of the first nomination...it is not something I would wish to put Eequor through again, so in the interest of civility and community consensus building, I have a request to make:

  • if you are voting to oppose, and
  • if you voted oppose for Eequor at her last nomination, and
  • if your reasons for voting oppose now are unchanged from the last time, (having made a careful re-evaluation of Eequor since the last nomination),

then I would ask that you simply say something along the lines of "oppose, same reasons", rather than restating and rehashing old arguments from more than 7 months ago. Thank you. func(talk) 00:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank y'all for voting! ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. All my support. func(talk) 00:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. From what I've seen, she has made quite a contribution to WP. She also has uncommon views and a strong personality. All the more reason to support her. Satori 01:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. A very nice person. Sam Spade 01:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Sure. – ugen64 01:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Eequor's insights and comments might be a bit leftfield from time to time (downright strange, at times, in fact), but her work seems exemplary. we need a few admins who think not just outside the square, but as if the square didn't exist, and I think Eequor fits that bill. Also, I daren't object to anyone whose user profile sounds scarily like my SO, Alice... Grutness...wha? 01:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, 7 months is a lot of time.  Grue  04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    7 months? 6 months ago she deleted messages from 15 people opposed to Sam Spade's ArbCom nomination (he supports her here, of course), 5 months ago she vandalized Astro-chicken. Why is everyone saying 7 months? It has not been 7 months, or even 6 months. Ruy Lopez 20:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. "Support." - The Marmot
  11. Support - Sampling of edits shows attention to detail, and a penchant for cleaning things up. Talk interactions look friendly, sometimes sharp but not snide or derisive. I find the edit summaries amusing - it's not like she's adding made up words to article space. I see no rule that says admins must be 100% serious, all the time, no fun allowed - what a dreary place that would be. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. What mobilized me was that I can't believe that anyone would oppose her on the grounds of inventing words like "bulletize". She doesn't quite fit my criterion of good conflict handling. ("I really don't like conflict" doesn’t sound like that’s her strong point, and I didn’t find any good evidence.) However, I like her reply to RickK’s "cabal" question. If Grutness, the {{curly}} boxing champ, endorses her thinking outside of the box, she must be good. — Sebastian (talk) 22:57, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  13. support. This is not a sheep vote, but a calculated investment of trust (see comments below, I may still change back if really condemning diffs are shown). dab (ᛏ) 11:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. *This*, ladies and gentlemen, is prime wikipedia admin material. Humorful, resiliant, hard worker, playful, creative, intelligent. I think a number of people should review what wikipedia stands for, then come back and think about their vote again. This is the kind of person we need as an admin. So adminize already! Kim Bruning 20:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. She demonstrates the rare capacities of both tact and humour simultaneously and would thus would be an asset to the community even ignoring the excellent work she does on actual articles. If she believes even half of what she states here, she'll be a better admin than most of the those we presently have. The fact that she's stuck around and been as active as she has even after suffering all the ad hominem attacks by prominent wikipedians in her last RfA speaks volumes to her true maturity. - Seth Ilys 21:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. I believe she would become a great administrator. --Lst27 (talk) 21:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Everyking 23:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Not suited to adminship. Which is why we need her so much. — Chameleon 01:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Seth (and others) have convinced me. Support. May the gods have mercy on our souls. Kelly Martin 02:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. I find her different ideas refreshing. I worry about Wikipedia going stale, only promoting those to adminship who are the sort who don't bother anyone. I'd like to see more people who have different views of how this project could be improved to be promoted to administrator. In Eequor's case, I'm hoping it will give her a bit more legitimacy, rather than the attitude I see here of dismissing her in thinly veiled ad hominem arguments. I've seen some very disappointing things in this RFA from people for whom I have a lot of respect, and have seen few things about Eequor which worry me. kmccoy (talk) 02:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. She is capable and not a destructive force on Wikipedia. Bumm13 02:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. If she had switched to a new account half a year ago, I don't think there would be any objections to her adminship and people would be commending her hard work. Bygones. Radiant_>|< 09:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. — mark ✎ 13:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support, since she has shown the ability to acknowledge past mistakes.--Eloquence* 15:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support- 7 months of quality editing seems enough. Nothing wrong with being different! :) Flcelloguy | Give me a note! | Desk 16:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    7 months of quality editing? Does this include erasing the comments of 15 people opposing Sam Spade's Arbom nomination, or her vandalism of astro-chicken, both of which happened in the past 7 months? How many times is this 7 months mantra repeated? Ruy Lopez 22:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. I will come out of hiding to support this one. Knowledgeable, hard-working, good-natured, much more so than many current admins. VeryVerily 16:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Eequor is contrary and often holds a minority opinion. Which I consider a good thing! The only problem with it is that she often rubs people the wrong way, but it appears she's making an effort to acknowledge and handle that lately rather than inflame it. Nothing at all objectionable—far from it—about her article editing, and as per Seth, that she's stayed around and continued to edit just as much as before after her previous failed RfA speaks well of her. (Minor detail: I find the neologisms perfectly understandable.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. For all the normal reasons, plus her edit summaries are appropriate, understandable, and more detailed the comments left by some admins on the side of oppose [1] [2] Gmaxwell 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. A great contributor who is obviously very committed to Wikipedia. As Flcelloguy said, there's nothing wrong with being different. I rather like the edit summaries. --Canderson7 17:34, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support - Happy with the response given by the questions I previously had. Therefore I can support. -- Joolz 22:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Radiant's reasoning is quite convincing. Seven months is a long time, and I believe that Eequor has matured into a user who will make a fine admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. I hereby and with a most happy of hearts supporterize the administratitude of this fine lady person. --Al Sharpton 07:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support Mike H 14:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. Firstlyizedly I would like to on my knees beg Eequor to not stop editing wikipedia, no matter which way the adminship vote goes. This place should never become a uniformity-driven community. Secondously I would ask of her that if she does get the adminship (a thing devoutly to be wished for); she will prove all those who supported her adminship correct. I will not comment on the oppose votes, as I do not wish to embarrass people I respect, nor dignify those who I do not. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 21:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Excellent editor. -- ElBenevolente 21:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  36. Supportize. Good idea about the edit summaries, I think I'll start using them too—I can't figure what the problem is there. But mainly, I checked out recent edits and that's a good editor. And vote 34 on a pogostick is enough to melt any remaining ice in my heart. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  37. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  38. I think Eequor is a borderline case but one look at the opposition, some of whom make a lot worse admins than Eequor ever will, inclines me to strongly support her. Her edit summaries are about the best thing about her: harmless fun. Grace Note 07:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  39. I completely disagree with her opinions but I don't think those would make her a bad admin. There are some examples of bad decisions in her edit history but I can't find anything recent so I'll assume good faith and support. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Tentatively support. Kim Bruning vouches for her, and I trust his judgement. Ambi 02:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support Waerth 04:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. I'd only oppose if I found any evidence that she would be likely to abuse her admin abilities. Well, yeah, she did make a silly edit to Astrochicken back in January, but that's over and done with. Most of the objections to her adminship seem to be variations on "I don't agree with her". I don't always agree with her views either, but I don't vote for RfA candidates based on whether I agree with them. Eequor is an excellent editor and a dedicated janitor, and her adminship would do no harm and a lot of good. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. I've reviewed the complaints of those who oppose, and her recent contribution history. I don't see anything since the last RFA worth denying adminship over. Also, contrition demonstrated and suffering loads of criticism while remaining active here are good signs. Further, although I'd never support the use of them in the articles themselves, I found the neologies in the edit summaries as helpful as my own overly wordy edit summaries most of the time. They could be improved, but at least she's using them. --Unfocused 17:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  45. Agree with Grace Note. NoPuzzleStranger 18:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Disapprovize. The neologisms are still there, and still as unhelpful as ever. --Mrfixter 01:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Tell me, when's the last time you saw "deadminship" and "wikification" in a dictionary? Surely, all of us are guilty of creating strange neologisms. And anyway, at least she uses edit summaries, unlike a certain user here whose username begins with "u" and ends in "gen64"... :) – ugen64 00:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. No way. RickK 06:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yep. Continues to leave useless, made-up-word, edit summaries. That alone shows a profound disrespect of other contributors. -- Netoholic @ 17:33, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
    I don't see how her creative use of edit summaries is any more "disrespectful" than, say, my signature. (I've never heard anyone object to my sig, but if anyone does, feel free to let me know.) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  4. UtherSRG 22:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Decided to oppose after reading through previous RfA and doing some research. I suspect that (if I don't mention it), someone will point out that "7 months is a long time" or something similar. In my opinion, though, 7 months really isn't a long time, and I'm not prepared to believe that this user has completely turned themselves around during that very short time, especially considering the observations of Mrfixter and Netoholic above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    Not even seven months. Ruy Lopez 19:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Still don't trust Eequor. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Eequor is a good contributor, but in the past, she has shown some seriously bad judgement (a look at the old RFA nom is telling...) which makes me very, very concerned about the prospect of her being an admin. Func claims that she's improved since then -- I'd like to see some concrete examples of good judgement calls she has made since then. →Raul654 01:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) Since no one has made any effort to respond to my comment, I'm switching to oppose. →Raul654 22:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    Gee. Raul, give me some concrete examples of good judgment calls I've made. Rather tough, isn't it? And anyway, that's a bit difficult to use as a criterion - what's a good judgment call? Fixing grammar is a good judgment call... – ugen64 01:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    As I noted below, in February I reverted Wikipedia:Cleanup after an attempt to replace it with the content that I moved to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. The "new" system was considered by many to be unsuitable (RickK being among these, interestingly), and since both systems remained usable to the extent their supporters needed, the change was exactly what was needed at the time. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll respond. I agree that the old RFA is telling, but not in the way you think. For instance, one cite is this discussion, in which Eequor brings up a legitimate, good-faith, and sincere concern about a featured article candidate, and your response is to tell her to "grow up". (See WP:NPA.) This does indeed show seriously bad judgement and immaturity, but not on the part of the person you think. Eloquence has apologized for his behavior in that discussion; will you? VeryVerily 16:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    (Ignoring VV's trolling) Eequor's answer isn't really what I was looking for, and I think Ugen has a point that the question is an extremely difficult one to give a "good" answer to, so let me ask a similiar question. Eequor - please discuss a dispute (or near-dispute) you have had with someone where you think you aquitted yourself particularly well. In particular, what qualities did you display that would be good qualities in an admin? →Raul654 07:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    Heh heh, "trolling"?! Well, I can honestly say I did not expect better. VeryVerily 15:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Would Wikipedia:Elections/Endorsements poll be closer to what you have in mind? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Well, to lay it out plainly -- I'm trying to get some idea of what you would be like as an admin. The best way to do this is to look at how you have acted in the past when you have had to do the kinds of things admins have to do - particularly interacting with users with whom you disagree. (I'm not really sure what Wikipedia:Elections/Endorsements poll has to do with it -- you name isn't mentioned there.) The whole edit summary thing is (to me) a trivial side issue. →Raul654 01:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Eequor began the poll, made numerous edits to the poll [3], [4], [5], [6], and and closed the poll func(talk) 01:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    This poll is an example of Eequor's reformation? Less than three hours before this poll started, Eequor deleted[7] the comments of fifteen users opposed to Sam Spade's ArbCom nomination. When she began getting static about that, she created this poll, AFTERWARD, to try to get cover for her ability to delete such things. I definitely do not see this as an example of Eequor turning over a new leaf, the opposite in fact. Ruy Lopez 21:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. After some consideration, oppose - she's a fine editor, most of the time, but I don't want to see her as an admin. Too unreasonable at times. -- AlexR 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. English Wikipedia needs admins, but reliable and psychically stable ones. Sorry, I oppose. Geneviève 05:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    This user has < 70 edits Kim Bruning 15:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Is that a problem? Geneviève 02:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I'm not very convinced of the suitability of this editor, by the list of his supporters. ~~~~ 19:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    You're going by the list of "his supporters"? This is a prime example of a totally unthinking "me too" vote with absolutely no thought behind it whatsoever. If you had given this page even a cursory inspection before stating your opinion as if it were as valid as those expressed by everyone else (many of whom have looked into the matter carefully and given plenty of consideration to their vote) you would have seen everywhere references to Eequor as "she": "She works in numerous article areas", "She has also made very fine contributions", "she has shown the ability to acknowledge past mistakes", etc. If you had even looked at her user page before voting you would have seen "Eequor is a strange girl who in mundane life is known as Leah Q." What on earth made you oppose this candidate when it's quite obvious to everyone you didn't give the matter even a moment's thought? — Trilobite (Talk) 21:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I am not one to trust what people proclaim about themselves on user pages and elsewhere, as it is a very simple thing to lie. Likewise, he/she seems to be supported by an unusually large number of people exhibiting certain opinions, i.e. he/she seems to appeal to a single faction of people noticably more than the community as a whole. As such, I do not feel that there is an indication of neutrality on these matters, and that any apparant semblence of neutrality only occurs due to current avoidance of such topics. I do not feel I can trust Eequor to remain neutral or avoid areas where he/she is emotionally biased, when such a large skew exists amongst her supporters. This is unfortunate, and it is indeed the case that he/she may be innocent of such a charge. However, as Adminship is apparantly almost guarenteed to be permanent once granted, I must err on the side of caution. ~~~~ 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose After reading up on all that has been going on in the pass regarding this user I cannot in good concious vote to give Eequor adminship, if given I fear that she will at times forget the ethical limations that come with that power and may abuse it. Jtkiefer 23:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. History does not inspire confidence that Wikipedia policy is well understood. Jayjg (talk) 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I checked Eequors history before choosing to support.It's pretty long though, maybe I missed something. Can you be specific and provide a diff? Kim Bruning 17:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No diff necessary. Jayjg consistently uses "doesn't understand policy" as shorthand for "doesn't agree with Jayjg". — Chameleon 17:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Please, I'm asking Jayjg. Kim Bruning 17:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    That is a pretty lofty accusation, Chameleon, and one I think is pretty baseless and out of line. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    From your talk page: This edit, for example:[8] Note the second paragraph in particular; the assumption that the gospel accounts are completely accurate representations of the words of Jesus is one that must at least be qualified. "Unless Jesus was in error, a Christian cannot accept the Western Wall to be a surviving wall etc." is obviously POV about Christians, and without directly citing that POV, original research as well. I realize that Eequor is not Christian, and in fact dislikes Christianity, but the edit did not appear to be motivated by a love of Christianity in any event, but rather by a desire to debunk some of its beliefs. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    From the following history, where Eequor equally adds accounts from roman eye-witnesses I'd say she was being thorough. Note that the gospel accounts are canon, so I guess Eequor was on fairly solid ground there. Possibly I'm still missing something? Kim Bruning 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    What is is about WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research that people find so hard to understand and follow? It doesn't matter if her logic was perfect; what matters was that she cite arguments, not work them out on her own. And given the vast divergence of views among the world's 2 billion Christians, and considering that many liberal Christians do not believe that the gospel stories are all literally true, why on earth would someone imagine that NPOV would allow one to say "a Christian cannot accept etc." about just about anything? Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I don't understand your objection. That addition is quite clearly in support of a Biblical point of view. Note that NPOV does not require all points of view to be omitted; rather, it requires that all points of view are adequately represented.
    I'd also like to point out that this is by no means original research, as you would see if you read the referenced offsite page. [9] ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that...oh, Eequor just pointed it out. (damn edit conflicts!!!) :) func(talk) 22:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    NPOV requires all significant points of view to be adequately represented. What has been presented is one take on the Biblical point of view, which should be cited if significant, which itself is questionable (anyone can put up a website with unique theories, and many people do - this is exactly what "No original research" was intended to combat in the first place). More importantly, her edit took an unequivocal position on what Christians must believe, based on this interpretation, ignoring other obvious possibilities (the most obvious being that the Western Wall is a retaining wall, not a Temple wall, and that the gospel accounts are symbolic, not literal, etc.). NPOV demands that significant positions be presented and cited, not that one extreme minority position be stated as fact. As well, this is just one example of a poor understanding of Wikipedia policy. Another would be the notion that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules trumps policy;[10] this might be ok for a regular editor, but would be deadly in an admin. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    You're hardly in a position to criticise characteristics that would be deadly in an admin. Is that diff the best you can come up with? — Chameleon 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I think he has proved that your original comment was very well founded.Grace Note 02:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. It's regrettable this discussion has gotten so polar. But that's part of what bothers me. Few other good editors would arouse such vehement dislike from so many otherwise reasonable people. Responses here seem more like trying to whitewash past issues than admitting mistakes. Recent editing is said to be much better, so great, keep that up. But such erratic past behavior leads me to believe more is to come. People change, but not often quickly and usually only for very strong reasons. If there were a simple process for de-adminning, I'd be fine with giving her a shot, but as it is the risk isn't worth it, especially when considering she doesn't need admin powers to do most editing. - Taxman Talk 23:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    That is a rather weak argument. Let current admins dare go through the RFA process again. You would see that many would not succeed now that we know what they are like. — Chameleon 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for calling my long thought out reasoning weak. My attempt was to explain without causing hard fealings. I would appreciate not being insulted for my vote on RFA. You have your vote, I have mine. I think there's some merit to going through the process again, as I said a simple process for de-admining could help things. - Taxman Talk 13:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps you'd like to propose one? Last time someone did, it was howled down. Mostly by admins. Grace Note 02:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    So your argument is, we already have a few bad admins who slipped through the cracks, so why not let some more in? A ringing endorsement. Ruy Lopez 07:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The fact that this discussion has gotten so polar is unforunate. However, in my opinion, the unfortunate thing about it is that some people are so opposed to somebody that has non-mainstream views being an admin. I have seen no evidence that Eequor would abuse her adminship. She is a prolific editor, who does a lot copyediting and wikifying and other janitorial tasks, anyway. Perfect person for an adminship. This is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, people. This is the place that proudly features articles like Heavy Metal Umlaut and All your base are belong to us. Please, lets have more alternative viewpoints and uncommon people in positions of responsibility. - Satori 23:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    I don't see any evidence that any of the oppose votes are related to her views. Alternative viewpoints are fine, even helpful. But those are not what has aroused the vehement opposition. - Taxman Talk 13:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, I have a measure for this. If everyone agrees that something or someone is cool, then it's probably some uninspired grey-mouse kind of thing that no one actually *hates* at least. If everyone agrees someone sucks, then it's probably true. However when people are strongly divided, that must mean something interesting is going on! That's when you need to pay attention and actually think things through for yourself. And that's never bad. That's why I'm paying attention here too. Looks like some other people have the same idea here, and that's why they're voting neutral if they're not sure otherwise. :-) Kim Bruning 00:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, an astute observation, and I aggree: its the remarkable that gets praised and shot. But we have plenty of outstanding editors that are not admins, we don't need to promote borderline or potentially problematic ones. People say if we only knew of the last 7 months history we would certainly support. That may be so, but only because we wouldn't know about the propensity for discord. It would probably show itself anyway, and in this case we do know about it, so why should we ignore it? Besides, what's your stake in making sure she does get adminship? - Taxman Talk 13:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Weak oppose, I see good and bad in this contributor. Unfortunately, she attracts far too much controversy for Adminship; her actions, whether right or wrong, would cause polarisation.-- Cyberjunkie TALK 04:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, sorry. Just seems to have some odd ideas. Dan100 (Talk) 16:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    God forbid we should allow odd ideas in an encyclopaedia that covers all human knowledge. Grace Note 02:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I think the comment was referring to odd ideas about what should be in the encyclopedia, rather than odd ideas within it. I.e. ideas on the meta level of the Encyclopedia, rather than part of its content. ~~~~ 19:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Exactly so, Ril. I also consider the question of trust - do I trust this person to make the correct choice in tricky calls as an admin? No. Dan100 (Talk) 21:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. There is an idea brewing among supporters that she has mended her ways since her (failed) nomination seven months ago. I do not agree. Looking back to six months ago we can see one of Eequor's typical inflammatory edits[11] where she removed all comments in opposition to Sam Spade's ArbCom nomination. To be fair, I have to say she removed Sam Spade's one supporter along with fifteen of his detractors. I do agree with the supporters who say re-education is possible, and a bad editor can become a good editor, perhaps even one who can one day be an admin. But I do not think a few weeks is good enough. For me to support Eequor's nomination, I think more time has to pass, I think she needs to show she is making a contribution to Wikipedia and not stirring up a hornet's nest (as she has done in the past, many times), and I think she needs to convince people she has turned over a new leaf. Not enough time, nor effort, has passed for her to be considered admin material. Just six months ago, she was mass deleting the comments on fifteen users for a matter I was concerned with, Sam Spade's ArbCom nomination, and she was wrecking havoc in other areas more recent than that - five months ago vandalizing Astrochicken[12] and so forth. A few weeks of calming down is not good enough, more time, and more effort are needed. I personally think we've made a mistake in electing a few of the existing admins, and this is not a mistake that should be repeated. Ruy Lopez 19:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I must be missing something: Why do you write "a few weeks" when the most recent example was 5 months ago? — Sebastian (talk) 02:04, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
    Why do three supporters say she has been an angel for seven months when she has not been? Kim Bruning and others are leaving messages on people's talk page and asking them to cancel their opposition. Which is fine, but if you look at the RFA's around Eequor, they are 17-0 and 57-2, people seem to rest easy they will be good admins, they don't need behind-the-scenese string-pulling to try to change the outcome of the vote. Eequor failed in her last vote, and is currently below the 80% threshold. Ruy Lopez 02:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm, were you trying to answer my question? — Sebastian (talk) 04:16, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I'm going to have to respond to this. What I've been doing for several of the voters here is to compare notes with them. In all the cases where I've done this, the conclusions have been posted here, as far as I'm aware. In some of the cases, when comparing notes, people switched their vote, in some cases they did not. Notably in the first case where I compared notes (with silversmith) , I made a vote. That's how the consensus process works. Kim Bruning 09:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    To clarify: Sam Spade had made it clear he wished to receive neither endorsements nor disendorsements. I deleted same in an effort to honor that request. It became clear that was a contentious issue, and so I created Wikipedia:Elections/Endorsements poll to determine and record the opinion of the community. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Oh *THOSE* comments? Of the kind that Jimbo was asking folks to please not do that? Oh dear. :-( I think she handled herself quite admirably in a novel and rather chaotic situation there. One of the marks of an expert is not that they don't make mistakes, but rather that they *recognize* their mistakes, and take steps to mitigate the consequences. Wow. I'm actually impressed. ^^;; Kim Bruning 01:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    "I think she handled herself quite admirably in a novel and rather chaotic situation there." - I think the fifteen users whose comments she deleted, and the 83% of those polled who disagreed with what she did, would not concur. Ruy Lopez 01:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    So if you only do a poll if you think you're right, that's ok then, but if you have the guts to pull a poll to sort out if maybe you did a Bad Thing, that's wrong? ;-) I dunno, I'm drawing some very different conclusions here. Kim Bruning 01:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. I'm all for neologisms in edit summaries, but some of the edits linked above worry me. --W(t) 22:19, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

# Oppose - Sorry Eequor, sorry Kim, I just can't offer my support. Páll 23:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
The previous RfA is disturbing. And I must admit that the edit summaries, while cute, are unhelpful. As a RC patroller, I must admit that I want edit summaries that stand alone, because that's how I see them (standing alone). An edit summary that "makes sense in the context of the article" or "makes sense in the context of the history" is useless to me. The continued use of telegraphic neologisms that fail to convey useful information to other editors after being asked repeatedly to stop is very disturbing. However, I'm going to allow the candidate an opportunity to speak for herself before voting. Kelly Martin 08:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, one would have to be psychic to understand what an editor had done without reading both the article and the edit history. I don't see edit summaries as providing much more than the editor's intent. To me, whether the edit is marked as major or minor is much more valuable information. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With the sole exception of Dürize, I have never encountered an edit summary of Eequor's that was not immediately understandable. There is no great leap to make from listify to I turned some tabular content into a list, etc. Indeed, I find Eequor's consistency in making edit summaries very helpful. Too many users, including some admins, don't bother with edit summaries to the extent and with the persistence of Eequor. There is nothing unhelpful about them. func(talk) 16:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really don't get why people are making such a big deal of this. Looking through her edit history, I really don't see "useless" edit summaries. In fact, adding "ize" to a word to create a neologism is probably more understandable to me than using abbreviations. -Satori 17:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still wary. People can change, hell doesn't need to freeze over for that, and 7 months is a long time on Wikipedia, and it is well possible that Eequor has matured in that time. I will move to support if she makes a convincing case in the questions below (also, it would be a good sign if she changed her sig to something legible, minus the gif, just to appease fears of excessive eccentricity). I will move to oppose if recent (2-3 months) evidence is produced that she did not, in fact, mature since the last rfa. dab (ᛏ) 09:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) — moving to support in the spirit of assuming good faith. dab (ᛏ)

  1. Will support iff she removes the image from her signature. the wub (talk) 12:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Neutral leaning towards oppose presently (changed to support)...what was up with this edit? Everyking 13:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Hehe, just a bad joke that was too amusing to pass up. My first thought on seeing the perspectiveless pictures of ET 120 was "egg..." so, obviously astrochicken came immediately to mind. Sorry. I wouldn't have done it if I'd thought it would really affect anything, and I didn't touch the real content. It did get noticed and removed pretty quickly.
    (More in-depth: this was shortly after the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake, which I was greatly stressed over. This, along with some feigned vandalism, was the opportunity to vent that I needed. I ended up taking a sort of hiatus afterward, for probably several weeks.) ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I actually think the edit is quite funny. It's still vandalism, of course (not necessarily "feigned"), and was reverted after 12 minutes. I do think that's quite harmless, and wouldn't base an oppose vote on it. The obvious question would be, of course, do you think you could ever be tempted into "feigned blocking" or "feigned deletion" should you feel stressed at some point in the future? dab (ᛏ) 15:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    ^_^
    "Feigned" was actually in reference to another page, which I assume has been deleted by now. I certainly wouldn't block someone or delete a page without very good reasons (I'm an inclusionist anyway), and I don't joke about stuff like that. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. I did not participate in the last RFA discussion, but have now reviewed the material. I see a theme of aggravating behavior in the name of drawing attention to something. (e.g. Rambot Vfd nominations, FAC nominations, rude comments about developers on meta). Employing this sort of attention-getting strategy seems incompatible with adminship. If she still regards such tactics as proper and fitting, there is no persuasive reason to suppose that they won't be repeated. Without further comment on the topic, I can't tell whether she has reounced such tactics or has merely been lying low. — Tabor 23:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Abstain She is still too controversial for my tastes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Abstain. I find myself agreeing with arguaments on both sides of this debate. I think the crux of the problem is that Eequor is a hard-working, and friendly user, who on the whole makes quality edits, but she is also highly unpredictable on occasion. She is a great user, but I do not think she is neccassarily ideally suited for adminship. I'd suggest changing the sig too, it does not work on all browsers (like mine). Rje 12:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Seven months is a long time in Internet time but not in real life. JuntungWu 15:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'm voting neutral for the moment. I'm a little disturbed by certain edits and actions (especially the Bulgarian radiation leak - would you do the same again, or are you willing to concede that it was a mistake?). On the answer to question 3, ofcourse it's a nice aspiration to get involved in no conflicts, however, there have been conflicts, for example at Talk:Transwoman - what happened to the mediation? Looking around on this RFA, I see a lot of references being made to the previous RFA, is there nothing relevent which has happened in the last 7 months? -- Joolz 01:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) (oops, it appears I forgot to sign)
    The mediation on that article had been at my request. Shortly afterward I decided I shouldn't have gotten involved at all, and retracted the request.
    Regarding the radiation leak, I should have better familiarized myself with the In the news policy beforehand. It wasn't entirely a mistake — there had in fact been a reactor leak scare in the region — but that had occurred the previous week, and there had been no actual leak, so it wasn't really newsworthy. I was trying to do the right thing without nearly enough information. In the future I'd make sure to understand the policies, and not post material that couldn't be verified. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Changed vote to support -- Joolz 22:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Abstain user appears to still be highly controversial (*looks in mirror*) but I'm not convinced there has been enough change made since the last nomination. Eequor still appears to be rubbing salt in a few old wounds... maybe next year.  ALKIVAR™ 00:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Abstain for the moment. I'm not comfortable with Eequor as an admin, but judging from the quality of support this time around my concerns may be ill-founded. Also, my browser doesn't render her signature correctly which produces fnordish-discomfort. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Good friends drink and edit!
    Good friends drink and edit!
    AH! MOTHERLAND!
    AH! MOTHERLAND!
    The Party is to be degreeink we subterfugink small uprising in Cambodia against Kapitalist WikiKabal! We too buzy to be lookink on Eequor promotink to Administrative Komrade right now, so we are abstainink. But we promishink to be askink Father about this. We givink her vodka, the Red Flag of the Motherland, wishink her good luck and leavink her with this Russian sayink: IN SOVIET RUSSIA, ARTICLE EDITS YOU! Komrade Eequor, we shallute you! Da! Project2501a 08:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    ни к селу, ни к городу. бог мой. JRM · Talk 11:49, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  9. This RFA gets more interesting every time I look at it... I'll have to vote neutral here because I haven't seen enough of Eequor's editing to make a judgement on whether she'd make a good admin; the few times we've interacted have been nothing but positive, but that's not enough to go on. I don't know how she acts in conflict, and that's what I'm really interested in for admins.
    I do get the impression the opposition is mostly hung up over past issues, and in fact seems likely to remain hung up over them forever and ever. Is this some sort of unwritten policy on Wikipedia, that every single action counts to your karma and it can never be cleared, no matter if you make attempts to amend? I'm starting to suspect that it is. JRM · Talk 11:49, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
    Well, actually, by what else should one go but by experience? And the thing is not only that I had not overly positive experiences with Eequor in the past, I also do not see anything that indicates that things have changed. The way she states "I shouldn't have gotten involved" regarding the transwoman dispute is ridiculous - first she takes part in the debate, and not in a minor way, then she initializes a mediation, and then drops out without any comment, and now she says "Oh, sorry, I just shouldn't have gotten involved"? Sorry, but that does not exactly convince me to support her; and that is not just because of past things. -- AlexR 14:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    AlexR, respectfully, you were involved in a content dispute in which Eequor had verifiable facts, surveys, and statistics on her side, while you had ancedotal evidence. Through out the talk page comments, Eequor was respectful and making her point clearly and in an NPOV way. It is not appropriate for you to use this polite content dispute against her. In no way did she act improperly. I have dropped out of several issues and polls on Wikipedia, when I felt that things were heating up and I no longer wished to be involved. This was a while ago and it involved a mere difference of opinion rather than anything concerning suitability for adminship. func(talk) 15:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    With respect, Func, Alex is entitled to his opinion. I can't recall any other adminship on which nearly every oppose voter has been subjected to such a hostile interrogation . Ambi 16:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, clearly others have been hostile, and not you. func(talk) 17:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Func, next time you comment, you might want to read what you comment upon - Eequor had nothing close to anything like facts on her hand; the author of one study she cited wrote onto that page herself that this study was far too small to draw any conclusions from it. Also, I had, and I wrote so, a triffle more than "annectodal evidence", which you choose to ignore. Sorry, but am I to take such comments seriously? I don't think so. And attacking anybody who opposes adminship for Eequor is hardly the proper way to get support for her, either. Methinks that those people who don't like the way WP is run should either change it - instead of harassing random people - or fork. -- AlexR 18:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Neutral after further deliberation and conversation with other users. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 20:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. I still have a few concerns, but Eequor has shown good will in this, at least to me, and she has earned the respect of people I respect, so I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. After reconsideration, I now change my vote to neutral. Páll 01:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Neutral (I hate this option). Seems like Eequor is a good editor (don't care about edit summaries so much), however don't know enough about the editor. If weighted, this neutral tends more to support than oppose. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Neutral. It's obvious that there are still some concerns and perhaps this RfA can clear the air. Carbonite | Talk 15:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • As with Raul654, I opposed last time and still have concerns at this point. I'm not aware of any fault to be found in Eequor's recent editing, other than her neoconstructured, miscombinamed edit summaries. However, I also haven't seen anything that would tell me that the basis for past objections doesn't still hold. Doing lots of wikifying, tagging, and categorizing may be helpful, but it provides little information on which to evaluate the candidate — these things pump up the edit count and keep one's nose clean, but do not necessarily show that previous issues have been cured. I would like to see Eequor acknowledge and address the situation in more detail before making a decision here. --Michael Snow 02:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Your only objection last time seemed to be focused on what Gzornenplatz had said. I don't see how you can say Eequor is not acknowledging and addressing "the situation", since she seems remarkably up to date on replying to everyone's comments and concerns on this page. VeryVerily 16:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Gzornenplatz's comment was in turn a reply to Kate, so in part my objection at the time traces back to that issue. Nor does that particular exchange necessarily cover every last reason I might have concerns about Eequor, it's simply what I chose to express at the time. And if you'll note that when I posted this comment, Eequor had not yet really addressed that matter; she has now, with a gracious apology. As a result, I will at least not oppose (barring some new evidence I do not expect). At the same time, I am not yet certain that I feel comfortable enough to support. --Michael Snow 23:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, fair enough. But, my intent (if not literal meaning) was to note that Eequor has in general been very forthcoming (and gracious) in replying to people's concerns in a reasonably timely fashion. By "the situation" I did not know you were referring only to this one developers' board comment (much ado IMHO), which she yes hadn't gotten to addressing. I also want to add that information on her (non-tagging/etc.) work was specifically noted by func above. VeryVerily 15:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with Func's attempts at stifling debate here, since there will obviously be new people who did not participate in that vote. RickK 06:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Debate is not being stifled. His request specifically refers to those who did participate in the previous vote. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 12:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Try explaining to people who were not involved in the previous vote why those of us who still oppose you do so, if we're not allowed to say why. RickK 18:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I sort of assume people can follow wikilinks. There is a link to the previous nomination, after all. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Given that RickK's contribution to the "debate" was "Not a chance", I think we can survive without it. Grace Note 07:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right. RickK, I really hope no one misinterpreted my intent here. Anyone can follow the link to the previous nomination, so I simply didn't want to overburden this new RfA with a restating of everything on the old one. I don't believe in stifling debate, and I have only the highest respect and regard for RickK, who's opinions are important to me. func(talk) 15:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Func. I do have a question for those who are voting support, and I would ask it of Eequor as well: Why would we want an admin who believes that Wikipedia is dominated by a cabal? RickK 18:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
This is certainly a rhetorical question, though I am concerned that there may be excessive groupthink among the current admins. Simply, I believe Wikipedia should encourage a wide range of views, rather than attempt to stifle unpopular viewpoints, in order to minimize systemic bias. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the tenor of these answeres speak for themselves. RickK 23:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
RickK, I wouldn't start arguing about attitude if I were in your shoes. Believe me; I entered this discussion with no bias for or against the candidate or her detractors. Ask yourself why I emerged with a support vote. For example: I could not take your statement "[she] believes that Wikipedia is dominated by a cabal" seriously since it was not backed up with a diff and you (as well as some other detractors) appeared generally a bit extreme or emotional in your arguments. — Sebastian (talk) 02:22, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
Eequor's comments about cabals are notorious; I really don't think that's in much dispute. If you want diffs, though, you'll have to go find them yourself - most of us who've been around a while just remember them. It's not just that that bothers me, though. Eequor's always been erratic, and de-adminning people is still really difficult. I tend to think the odds are a bit high that she'll end up a rogue admin, and that it'll take a lot of effort having her de-sysopped later - time which could be spent done on more useful things. Ambi 03:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, that sounds fair. I understand the oppose votes better now. As for the evidence: Before I consider changing my vote I'd have to see it; I did look at a number of her recent talk contributions and I couldn't find anything in support of this. I also think you have a point about de-adminning. — Sebastian (talk) 03:37, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
So it's my attitude being attacked because this person wants to be an admin even though she would be presenting an "anti-cabal" face to the public, and you jump down my throat because I don't prove it, even though Func said above not to repeat our arguments? Fine. I'll just reiterate her previous vote, where all of the evidence resides. RickK 06:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I really don't see why this is a big issue. Func's request was only intended to lessen the impact of animosity continuing from the previous vote. People will have their opinions, but there's little point in stating them more than once. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ambi: I have said on occasion that certain groups involved with Wikipedia resemble a cabal. That isn't the same as believing an organized Cabal actually exists. It's amusing to imagine some shadowy organization ruling Wikipedia, but I don't take the idea very seriously. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For an example, see [13].:
Lack of appropriate attention to this page only provides further evidence for the existence of a Cabal. If there is any work being done, failure to provide or invite feedback means that any decisions are being made in private, restricted to a small select, exclusive, and secret group who nonetheless control the progress of MediaWiki.
That doesn't sound like a joke to me. Did you forget <sarcasm> tags or something? It appears to me that characterizing some of these incidents as jokes is disingenuous. Not recognizing why such missives are a problem and dismissing them as "jokes" is the biggest problem I see. You may believe that taking a confrontational approach and stirring the pot is the best way to get things done. Some people have this style. I personally don't think it is a great quality in an admin. --Tabor 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link – but that was 10 months ago! — Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
See right below, where she sorts this out with Eloquence :-) Kim Bruning 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Must oppose in light of the comments above. Also, the vandalism of Astrochicken shows otherwise in the question of candidate maturation. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 00:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Ah , you realise that was in january , right? Kim Bruning 01:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, and I have taken that, along with several other factors, into account in this vote. In other words, the changing of that page didn't swing my vote to either side in a large way, but was still worth mentioning. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 13:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Unfortunately it wasn't worth mentioning in TBSDY's vote, now, was it. – ugen64 03:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    TBSDY is a hugely, vastly better candidate. His bad joke is much more easily overlooked. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yes it was in January - five months ago, not five years ago. The sentence at the top of the page says "Eequor joined Wikipedia on March 7, 2004, and since that time has amassed nearly 12,200 edits". Let's pretend she was born again right after the Astrochicken vandalism - then she truly joined Wikipedia as a responsible user on January 2, 2005 and has amassed less than 2,000 edits. 12,200 edits sounds impressive until you consider that even after 10,000 edits in she was still vandalizing pages. Ruy Lopez 20:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Now Neutral. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 20:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose because of rude and inconsiderate comments against developers and cabal fantasies. Willing to reconsider if she elaborates particularly on [14] (apologies if she has already done so). The attitude of "being polite hasn't worked for anybody in a long time" she expressed in a follow-up comment isn't particularly helpful either.--Eloquence* 23:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    I think it's clear from the length of that page that the developers were, at the time, far more inconsiderate and rude than any single user. They should not expect the users to nevertheless be happy. (It should also be pointed out that the first comment, mostly in all caps, was not mine.)
    However, I'd like to apologize for comparing the developers to a cabal. I was trying to encapsulate my frustration and the frustration I'd seen from other users at that page, and probably got a bit carried away. So... I'm sorry. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your apology. I've changed my vote accordingly. I still find the "far more inconsiderate and rude than any single user" comment highly problematic though.--Eloquence* 15:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Cabal fantasies are becoming ever more reality... and I make plenty of rude comments too! :) – ugen64 01:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    To be fair, being polite doesn't really help people in the present Wikipedia culture (it can on #wikipedia, but I don't see it making a difference on the site itself). A not-insignificant number of folks, especially "senior" admins and the type, are condescening, arrogant, and don't listen to the rest of us rabble. Being rude doesn't help, either, but I don't see that politeness expedites matters around here. Sad, but true. - Seth Ilys 02:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I find it difficult to agree with any general comment of this nature.--Eloquence* 14:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Yep. – ugen64 02:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Remember this quote, Eloquence? "::::Eequor is just trolling because she's miffed about something. She probably wanted to stick some naughty picture into her sig or something.." I'd think twice before accusing others of having fantasies.... Bumm13 02:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I made that comment after Eequor posted a complaint on the Main Page discussion page about Holy Prepuce (a featured article) being featured. Given her self-designation as "the universalist priestess of the goddess Eequor" and her expressed antipathy for "Judaism, Islam, and especially Christianity", I found it likely that her complaint was not the result of serious offense taken at the article (which features no images of prepuces), but more an attempt to stir things up (much like your own comment, as it happens). If it was the result of being sincerely offended, I apologize for my tone. Anyone interested in this debate can read it up on Talk:Main_Page/Archive_26.--Eloquence* 14:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    I apologize for the tone of my earlier comment. It's very easy to become frustrated with things sometimes and fall into unnecessary negative commentary. Bumm13 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meekly raises hand

Um, I'm with the only officially unofficial (or is it unofficially official) cabal on wikipedia at the moment. Might I could get a word in edgewise?

You know, adminship on wikipedia is all about like, y'know, doing janitorial type work. Do we have any doubts about Eequor being able to do that?

No? No. I didn't think so. Ok, so adminship is not a popularity contest. What's the oppose votes for?

Personally I think she'll probably do a superlative job. I don't understand exactly what other folks are complaining about (please elucidate!). Maybe you feel intimidated by Eequor? I don't know. It worries me. In any case I'd like to see her be granted adminship, and maybe see her participating in some of the trickier tasks on wikipedia too. (and maybe pop up on irc sometimes? One can hope).

We need more cool people on wikipedia.

Kim Bruning 20:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh! And Raul654 and Kate might want to vote differently here from last time.

For Raul654: WP:IAR has incresed in prominence,

For Kate's concerns, well, recently (7 months later) Jimbo has appointed a research officer (who set up a committee that now now consists of over 32 members), to try to address trouble communicating with the developers, effectively stating that Eequor was correct .

(I might disagree with the foundation and with Eequor to some degree, but at least that shows she's not insane in the slightest!)

This is the kind of person I don't mind having around.

Kim Bruning 20:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no MediaWiki Foundation. The Wikimedia Research Network is open for anyone to join. No one was appointed to it. Eloquence was appointed by Jimbo (not any board) to a position of research officer, but the research network was developed after that and can hardly be considered a cabal if anyone can join it and no one was appointed to it. Angela. 20:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I missed these points on proofreading. Corrected. Eequor stated that the developers were practically acting like cabal; in the sense that they were inaccessible to normal editors, and that they appeared to be acting only on their own accord. In this position I believe that several people now agree with her. Kim Bruning 22:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that the developers are acting like a cabal at all. It's simply that the existing structures (Bugzilla, IRC etc.) are not known or not sufficiently transparent to many users. The WRN acts to facilitate communication between users and developers and between developers and the board; for example, you could post a feature suggestion on the newly refactored m:Development tasks or its talk page.
I think Eequor was unnecessarily confrontational in accusing the developers of being a cabal and ignoring the users, particular given the massive workload being handled by the developers. Losing even one of the active developers because of such inconsiderate rudeness would be a great loss to the project as a whole. The accusation of forming cabal-like structures is an accusation of maliciousness, and such an accusation should only be made after you've seriously checked your facts, which does not appear to be the case here.
So, in that regard, I think this is an example of Eequor's generally combative style, which is a reason I will oppose her adminship as well. That doesn't mean she hasn't made or isn't making good edits, of course, but adminship requires a level-headedness that I simply don't see here.--Eloquence* 23:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note about the vote tally -- Kelly Martin and dab both changed their vote to support, but they're still being counted in the tally as neutral as well. By my count, there are 8 top-level neutral comments (although some of them don't actually say abstain or neutral.) I'm not sure how to fix this without making a mess of things, though. kmccoy (talk) 08:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What, you don't understand Russian? :D Drink some vodka, and you'll be perfectly understood! :D
  • Eequor should be judged on her general pattern of behaviour, not a single event that happened almost a year ago. I don't hold a grudge that long. She continues to be critical of developers, but heavens, if we tried to suppress criticism from within the community by denying promotion to anyone who speaks out, then her criticisms would be well-founded indeed. I haven't seen enough of her editing behaviour to comment on this request any further. -- Tim Starling 01:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[In reference to func's request that people who voted no on the previous RFA not repeat their original comments] I copied this comment by User:Ruy Lopez down from the header so as to avoid cluttering the intro up. kmccoy (talk) 23:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this request is ridiculous and may have already contaminated the election. People opposing Eequor two times (which does not include me, by the way) are told to be silent, yet no such prohibition is put on two-time supporters. This reminds me of an edit[15] that Eequor made six months ago, when she tried to silence fifteen critics of Sam Spade's ArbCom nomination. To cover herself, she silenced his one supporter. You're not even allowing that cover - all two-timers who agree with you can talk, all who oppose must be silent. In my mind, your attempt to make new rules for RfA invalidate this voting. Ruy Lopez 19:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you're getting the spirit of func's request. I don't think the point or intention is to stifle debate. Even if you disagreed with the request, it's just that: a request. It's not a "prohibition", nor are people being "told" to be silent. I just took a quick glance at the edit you referenced from the arbcom election, and I think that edit was also made not to change the outcome of the election, or to silence critics, but just as a well-intentioned move to try to tone down the level of hostility. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either func's or Eequor's actions in these cases, but I think you've mischaracterized them. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 23:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If fifteen people feel it is proper to make a comment somewhere, and one person makes the decision that they know better than those fifteen people where comments should go and arbitrarily erases all of their comments, I would tend to think this raises the level of hostility instead of toning it down. Unless you think that fifteen people enjoy being squelched by one person of the ability to make a complaint about something. I should also note that after the fact, and after an uproar over what she did, Eequor created a poll to see if a policy could be created to allow her to make such erasures, and over 83% of the respondents said no. Ruy Lopez 00:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. My aspirations as an admin have not changed. I anticipate mainly attending to maintenance issues, dealing with vandalism, and possibly following up with speedy deletions occasionally.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think it's a bad idea for contributors to get attached to articles they've worked on. Still, I am pleased to find places where I've left my touch and it's remained. I'm happy with Wikiproject:Chemicals, which has grown into sth quite impressive since I passed it over to more experienced contributors, and it was nice to see Wikipedia:Cleanup return to its normal activity after I moved the attempted (and unpopular) replacement to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I really don't like conflict. When I've found myself in it anyway, most often it seems that the other party wants or expects some kind of problem. I've seen people start with "I hope not to get into an edit war", general impoliteness, and plain hostility. Such things are a waste of time.
The only major recent conflict that comes to mind is the User:CheeseDreams debacle. Mainly I did what I could to determine the extent of the damage she had done and made sure the other users affected were aware of the requests for comments and arbitration regarding her. A lot of that has been collected at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence.
I'm told that the issue with AlexR may be a greater concern to some than I was aware, and I'd like to explain that some. The two of us had disagreed over the importance of some statistics, and progress on the particular article had stalled (it was edited by very few people). I requested mediation, but after a short time decided it would have been better if I hadn't become involved with editing that page, and retracted my request. I haven't edited there since. The incident lasted for very little time, and occurred slightly over a year ago, not long after I'd first started editing on Wikipedia. I don't consider it particularly relevant to my request for adminship.
I concur. It would seem that some in the community have very, very long memories. Wikipedia is an experience that takes time to absorb and learn from. Most of the current objections are releated to things brought up at the last RfA. Although some have stated otherwise, seven months is a long time; it is a tremendous amount of time to devote to a project with no pay, no health insurance, and no real recognition to the greater world. Eequor has been here for well over a year, and she's been a tremendous editor. She can/will make a fantastic administrator. Someone above made the rediculous assersion that perhaps she has been "laying low" since the last nomination...are you kidding? No one devotes more than half a year of their freetime in an effort to "lay low". Eequor is commited to Wikipedia, she wants good things to happen here. func(talk) 01:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Eequor_%282nd%29_a0c1.html"