User talk:Eequor/Archives/Adminship II
RfA 2005
[edit]Hi, Eequor. :) I am hesitant to bring this up, but it has been 7 months since your failed adminship nomination. You currently have something like 12,179 edits according to Kate's tool, and you continue to make fantastic improvements to Wikipedia. You expressed an interest in maintenance issues, assisting with rolling back vandalism, and other administrative duties. Are you still interested?
Your previous nomination was very contentious, and I wouldn't want you to go through that again if you felt it wasn't worth it. I value your input as a Wikipedian, and I would very much like the honor of re-nominating you, but given the difficulty of the last time, I will understand if you are not interested.
If you accept, this is the pitch I will make:
- 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) 17:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, that's good! Thanks. ^_^
- OK, kiddo!!! Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eequor (2nd) I'm thinking good things about this. Good luck! :) func(talk) 00:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quick query re your RFA
[edit]I have an overal positive impression of you, even so, I'd like some extra information, if you have some time?
Could you provide some references/diffs on your answers to questions? I'm always especially interested in question 3 (re: conflicts) could you point to some conflicts you've been in, and how you handled them?
Kim Bruning 22:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The only major 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.
- Regarding the other questions, which parts would you like references for? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's good enough for me, Thanks! Don't forget to put that up on the RFA page too! If you like, please see bishonen too if she still has questions. You'll find that depending on how you answer her, you might manage to win over some of the neutrals.
- Kim Bruning 23:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand Raul654s concerns, can you address them? A lot of people look at his comments very carefully! :)
- Finally, it might be possible to discuss issues with AlexTM.
- Kim Bruning 23:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think Raul654 is referring to the Bulgaria thing (I'd felt a rumored reactor leak was worthy for In the news), but I'm not really sure either. Thanks for your comments! ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'd like to contact you privately, could you send an email to me at my wikimail address,or could you maybe come on irc? (irc.freenode.net #wikipedia) Kim Bruning 00:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To pass Go and collect $200 ...
[edit]Wikipedia is based on consensus, it's *not* a numbers game, however, sometimes people draw lines, and in this case here's the line that needs to be crossed;
To gain admin, you must at this point, either:
- Gain 44 support votes, and no more opposes.
- Win over 3 or 4 people who are currently opposing
Each opposer you can win over is worth 4 additional supports.
If you actually do win over opposers, then that alone might show that you have some aptitude for this adminship thing ;-)
Ok, that's the theory, here's the practical next step:
Check Raul654's current request.
- "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?"
I had this same question but found some answers in your edit history, you still need to convince Raul though (that and that's the actual question 3 in the questions for the candidate section). Could you provide an example of a conflict that you handled well, in the sense that Raul654 means? Also see some stuff on my user talk where people have answered the same question.
A good answer will leave you needing just 40 votes total, with 7 left to go (at time of writing). See if you can improve it further! ;)
Good luck! :-) Kim Bruning 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Time to bail out
[edit]This RFA won't fly no more, check oppose votes 15 and 16. This is the kind of comment you actually want to pre-empt. You're on fire, eject! :-(
It's not good to push on despite causing this amount of trouble. :-/ I reccomend leaving a polite message withdrawing your candidacy at this point in time. :-)
No worries though. Let's try again in a month or so. We got a lot of issues solved this time round, but the RFA itself has become too tangled. Doing a fresh nomination later might give us a much cleaner picture. And you'll likely pass that one, seeing the nature of the votes this time around.
Fair deal?
Kim Bruning 12:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Kim, I respectfully disagree. Eequor is representing herself well, and she should continue to do so, (but don't stress yourself out, Eequor...this is so much more heated than I thought it would be, and I feel really bad about it). func(talk) 16:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well the problem is that there's always a lot of inertia in these things. Once oppose votes start stacking up, it's very hard to keep stopping them. "Sticking it out" can actually hurt a person more than help at this stage, and pulling out in itself often does a lot of good. See Ta Bu Shi Da Yu for an example!
- In a situation like this where a person is representing themselves well, despite heated opposition, pulling out and going a 2nd round a month later can have much better results, since a lot of people will see how the person did. No harm in waiting either. It makes a good impression.
- The objective here is to prove you are suited for adminship, not to stick it out against all odds!
- Kim Bruning 16:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)