Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eternal Equinox

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

[edit] Eternal Equinox

Final (0/12/1) ended 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox (talk • contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia for four months now, and I believe that I have a good use of knowledge that will enhance the community. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose for the moment, but I might be swayed. The answer to Q3 scared the hell out of me (anytime it's suggested that "take me seriously" overrides "for the good of WP", it's worrisome) but the answer to Q4 mitigated that somewhat. Even more problematic, the candidate prefers talk page blanking over archival, and user e-mail is not set up, which is mandatory. RadioKirk talk to me 00:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Strongest-possible oppose, seems to have blanked his userpage and talk page because of accusations from User:Bunchofgrapes that Eternal Equinox seemed to be stalking him as well as Bishonen (still remains blanked even though he supposedly unblanked his talk page), which violates both Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Removing warnings. Eternal Equinox also seems to lack civility, such as with his comment on Raul654 [1] and Bishonen [2]. I'm also concerned about his answers to the questions, the claim that he has been making up Wikipedia policies, his low amount of edit summaries for minor edits, as well as the fact that he hasn't confirmed his e-mail adress.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

   Those are all pretty bold statements. I was never left a warning on my talk page, it appears as though Bunchofgrapes was looking through my contributions since I appeared to have made a few edits to the articles he was editing. Since I removed his edit because I found it to be nonsense, I removed it, as he told me I was allowed to. This "making up policy" is absolute nonsense — never did I make up a policy. When is "removing another's comments inappropriate" not a policy? I was merely unaware that this did not apply to talk pages. Further, the links you provided: one does not even mention Bishonen despite that you claim it does, and the other is a conversation I had where Raul654 was not present. Speculation was the topic of discussion. I'm curious to know what your intentions are. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

   First of all, you shouldn't remove comments on your talk page that aren't personal attacks or vandalism, especially if they are pointing out possible cases of stalking and incivility (defiantly not "nonsense"). Also, the link provided on Bishonen shows Bunchofgrapes commenting that you should "stop bugging her" (referring to Bishonen as evidenced by previous comments on the conflict between you, Bishonen [3], Bunchofgrapes, and Raul654). As for Raul654, you stated that "We Belong Together had been nominated again, but Raul654 removed it because he believed it had spent "too much time at FAC". I'm not sure I believe this. Bulbasaur and even Céline Dion spent astronomical time periods at FAC even during their second and third times. I wonder if someone else is the result of his decision", which is disrespecful of his decision (please always remember to assume good faith.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

   Really now? Only one problem: the header HeyNow is not about User:Bishonen, but rather User:HeyNow10029. You appear to jump to conclusions rather quickly. Please assume good faith. Also, where does it state that I am now allowed to comment on one's decisions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

   It doesn't really matter if it was Bishonen or HeyNow (BTW, I'm very sorry about the slight confusion), either way you were apparently being disrespectful to someone. Also, you are allowed to comment, but please always remember to make civil, respectful comments of other users. Anyhow, please don't take this personally, you're not a bad user and I'm trying my best to not offend anyone. :)--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per his answers to the questions, especially number 3. He looks like a great editor, and I'm glad to have him around--but if he was set loose with the mop I'd feel very uncomfortable. It seems to me that he seeks adminship only to gain authority over others, which is something that I find quite bothersome. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 00:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
5. [4], [5].--Sean Black 00:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

   You are opposing because I've made edits to articles? This vote does not make any sense to me. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

   He is voting oppose because you didn't give a valid reason in your edit summaries for those edits. For example, on the black pepper article, you removed the "bags or" phrase because you thought it was "unusual" [6].--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. E.E, are you sure about this? I don't think that you would make a great administrator. On the one hand, I have to admit that you are kind, respectful and hardworking. However, I'm afraid that you are ignorant of most of the policies here and you have been in far too much disputes. Furthermore, you have blanked both your user and talk page, and wasn't it a few days ago that you said you were gonna leave Wikipedia? I'm really sorry if I sound harsh or whatever, but I'd really encourage you to withdraw this before all hell breaks loose. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - great editor but just not ready for the mop -- Tawker 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Tawker. G.He 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose I think more learning with communication skills and restraint needed first. Tyrenius 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose User edits disharmoniously. - FrancisTyers 00:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Elaborate? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

11. Weak oppose; a great editor but unstable ("left" Wikipedia a few times) and unfamiliar/"ignorant" of the Wikipedia policies. Will support in a few months if no further issues arise. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 00:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Bunchofgrapes will be opposing shortly. Did you know Getcrunk? You're a fantastic editor too, exactly why did yours fail? Because of your name? Odd. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Please don't make personal comments about Getcrunk's RfA. This is your RfA, not his.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    I am allowed to be curious though. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

12. Absolutely Oppose, because His behavior is uncivil, and made personal comment's about Getcrunk's Request for Administrator. So, I strongly oppose him to be admin. Daniel5127, 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I'm undecided right now. Mostly Rainy 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm curious to know why opposer number 7 believes I am not ready for the "mop" (housecleaning on Cinderella? Would make an interesting novel!)? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• I STRONGLY APOLOGIZE FOR ERASING THE CONTENT ON THIS PAGE. DELISTED, NONETHELESS. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• See Eternal Equinox's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 00:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username        Eternal Equinox
Total edits     3951
Distinct pages edited   843
Average edits/page      4.687
First edit      15:19, January 28, 2006
        
(main)  2102
Talk    421
User    169
User talk       622
Image   95
Image talk      2
Template        19
Template talk   8
Category        7
Wikipedia       486
Wikipedia talk  20

• See Eternal Equinox's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: The typical, the occasional block and delete. Helping others when they require assistance as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

A: We Belong Together. It has advanced quite a bit since I started coworking on it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Yes, there are a few who have caused me stress. I will deal with it the way it had been dealt with originally: it was not largely debated until one situation, which I cannot clearly recall where other administrators released the cat from the bag and were incredibly ignorant. I would like to be taken more seriously by these users, which has failed to happen. I'm waiting for their inclusion and objections, which will take place more than shortly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

4. (by Radiokirk, optional as always) Why do you wish to become an administrator?

A: If one does not like the value of my answer, then it is fine by me. I would like to become an administrator because...

• I believe that I can help the community complete some additional chores when another is not present or editing Wikipedia.
• In addition, I really want to strive for helping newcomers on Wikipedia. When I first registered an account, I requested the assistance of a few administrators, but I was ignored. This should be fixed, and I want to assist everyone who requires attention, anonymous IP or registered user. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

5. (by ReyBrujo, optional) Why have you blanked your user and talk pages? It doesn't seem you have archived them. I won't be voting in this RFA, as I haven't had shared the wikiground with this user, but I found the blanking curious. Feel free to utterly dismiss this question.

Would you like me to unblank them? I will do that. The reason I blanked them is because I was a little bit aggrevated with myself and was going to take a wikibreak, which I sort of did. I shall unblank them. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. No, I really don't mind how a user page looks like. However, being a candidate for adminship, I guessed this would be asked several times, and having your "official" word about the action would save everyone some time. -- ReyBrujo 00:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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