Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PaxEquilibrium

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

PaxEquilibrium

[edit]

(33/25/6); Ended 12:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) - I believe that this guy should've been an admin a year ago. When I first interacted with him, on IRC, he knew of policy enough that I thought he was an admin - especially the three revert rule. Looking at his past few hundred contributions, he's also been level-headed. In short, he possesses all the necessary attributes to be an admin, his past RfA shows this. He shouldn't be denied a tool he deserves because he's Serbian or because of a terrible prank. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.--PaxEquilibrium 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: 3RR violations, page protection and deletion of improper images and articles (that fulfill the speedy delete criteria). I think (AFAIK, am convinced) that Wikipedia desperately needs more administrators for dealing the first two (which is probably the main reason why I accept this nomination
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Stefan Nemanja, Duklja and several other history-related articles. That is because I'm deeply interested in History - and biographies at the same time (like musician Stevan Hristić). I believe in the old saying Historia magistra vitae est (especially due to the fact that history keeps repeating itself). Not to be Balkan-centric, I've also started Kingdom of Portugal (I was shocked that there is none!) and am researching on the subject currently, but for some time by now most of my edits are minor edits to various (all-kinds-related) topics, because I have the tendency to stroll the Recent Changes and because I have a gigantic watchlist. I have also an interest in politics to an extent (note: I am disgusted by it at the same time because of this, in which I was a victim of many devious minds, but that's probably the reason why I'm interested in it) so I edit National Assembly of Serbia and to an extent Assembly of Montenegro. I'm mostly interested in creating a balance in the torn world, between Albanian, Bosniac, Croatian, Serbian and other nationalists. I am also (note: losing modesty right now) kind-of proud of my eternal enforcement and following of practically each and ever single of Wikipedia's rules like a soldier (although I'm not sure if that's something I should be really proud of ;0).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Most conflicts over editing I solve through conversation at the corresponding talk page; when being 3rd party (e.g. Montenegrin Orthodox Church and Croatia) I both tend to research the problem deeply and stay neutral (which is a very hard thing to do). Yes, User:Afrika paprika has disturbed me very, very much. But for the entire agonizing one year of his trolling (and constant and repeated returning as User:Zrinski, User:Tar-Elenion, User:Pygmalion, User:Praskaton, User:Krpelj, User:Joker 13, User:Factanista,...), I've remained calm and every single second remained level-headed (even in the very moments when he cursed my mother *you-know-how*, threatened to kill me and kept vandalizing my Userpage for 19 times adding ethnic-driven ultra-nationalist provoking). But all users with whom I had conflicts are now banned (another is User:Alkalada), as the only thing for which I'm guilty is feeding the trolls, instead of doing like Doc said "If a user acts like a troll, treat him like a troll should be treated". I plan to be more rigid with cases of obvious trolling in the future (but not ever giving up a bit of smile and calmness!).

Optional question from Durova

[edit]
4. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Wikipedia? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. DurovaCharge! 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A.: I think that what is happening to Wikipedia is horrible. That's one of the reasons why I accepted this nomination, we must simply not allow Wikipedia's credibility sink. I'm seeing through a similar problem, where (obviously) a tourist company or some high-ranking employee probably, is bombarding (literally) Dalmatia-related with commercials. Yes, I commit myself to dedication in solving this (helping solve to be honest), but I cannot agree with a little thing User:BradPatrick said: Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. I probably misunderstood it (that's possible, in that context), but I would never cross the limit of Wikipedia's policy. If there is a problem with the policy - change it - but obey it. --PaxEquilibrium 06:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Samir

[edit]
5. Please provide detailed comment on the circumstances behind your departure at the time of your previous RfA. Many of us remain perplexed about what happened.
A....and I am included in that many. However, there was no departure - due to my compromised account - I continued editing with another account. For a full grasp of my edge (lol, not to use point ;) of view can be seen at the User:HRE userpage and to the below on the answer to User:Nishkid64's question. --PaxEquilibrium 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nishkid64

[edit]
6. From your block log as HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs), I see that there was a suspicion that your account had been compromised after it appeared you had "died". Could you please explain the situation, and if your account was compromised, can you reassure us that you now have a stronger password?
A. Yes, sadly, it was. For a detailed explanation (as much as I'm capable of offering one, it remains puzzled to me - I've drawn the question to "dig in" the matter quite a few times, but it appears that some administrators have deleted the pages created in the scandal), please refer to my temporary userpage. One possibility (mentioned by a 3rd part Editor) is that User:Ferick has hacked my account. And yes, my password is more than 15 characters long (not gonna tell you precisely how long, lol ;) and now gets changed from time to time (although to be honest, not as frequently as 30 days). --PaxEquilibrium 05:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this statement per User:Philippe to the below. My most sincere apologies for the misunderstanding. --PaxEquilibrium 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ante Perkovic

[edit]
7. Regarding your alledgeg hijacking: Why You spent your days first just staying and watching as the events develop, powerless to affect it, before returning instead of just using an email, phone, IRC, or some other way of communicating (maybe even to log from internet caffe or from home) to clarify your hijacking. If you want me and other people to believe you, I think you should clarify how someone in modern world can be cut off from the rest of the world just because his wiki account was blocked. Please, explain. --Ante Perkovic 08:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from ^demon

[edit]

You say above that:

If there is a problem with the policy - change it - but obey it.

How do you feel this plays into IAR? When would be a good example to invoke IAR and essentially do the opposite of what you said above? ^demon[omg plz] 08:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

[edit]
  1. User:Ceha - inactive for 23 days
  2. User:Zmaj - inactive for almost 8 months
  3. User:Ante Perkovic - inactive for 2 weeks.
  4. User:Vodomar - inactive for almost a month
    Also inactive for a week on hr wiki. Just some back, both here and there. Do I loose all my rights because of this wiki break? --Ante Perkovic 13:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not, but the situation of returning just to vote is highly suspicious - especially due to the already present case of votestacking at this RfA. --PaxEquilibrium 19:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another name to add to this list - User:Vodomar, also from the Croatian Wikipedia. His last edit before today, when he ever so fortuitously discovered this RfA, was on an AfD on April 21, and before that on April 2. Not to mention that even on April 2 he only made 2 edits and before that he last edited on March 12.[1] So it seems pretty clear from the circumstancial evidence that he has been invited to cast an opposing vote here.--Hadžija 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that all of those users come from the same country, and after being inactive for a considerable time, they all found this RfA only hours after it had been submitted. I just thought people might find this interesting. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/PaxEquilibrium before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Strong support. I know PaxEquilibrium quite well, since we cooperated on a number of articles, mostly history and politics-related. In our little Serbian v. Montenegrin edit battles, he was always the cool headed guy, or the referee if you will. And I think that is a sort of person that an ideal admin should be - a cool headed, rational guy with good faith edits and NPOV, which I believe Pax definitely is. Hence, he has my support in this request, although I think he should have submitted it a long time ago. Also, if he helped me become a normal contributor, rather than sort-of-vandal that I was in my first edits, I'm sure he can do whatever the adminship responsibilities require him to. :) Sideshow Bob 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I concur with the nom on every aspect. We should help good people who are willing to work in mud-filled areas. Grandmasterka 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. He is an excellent editor with a great passion and understanding of history. He is very cool-headed and knows his stuff. He is one of the best for the job of administrator and has my support, even though he should've become administrator ages ago. --CrnaGora 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've seen him about doing good stuff. Should be fine. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support All I've seen from this user was good work. Húsönd 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, looks good. --Phoenix 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I can support this user because he has shown calmness under pressure. He works in a difficult area of history and is to be commended for his efforts. JodyB talk 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good admin candidate. Captain panda 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Can't see any reason to oppose on current activity. I'm willing to Assume Good Faith about the past Tswsl1989 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Thought he was anyhow, see no reason to go against that. -Bbik 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as nominator. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 10:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per a comment that Badlydrawnjeff made - we are reaching the stage where it would be easier for experienced editors who have made mistakes or been controversial to create a sock account specifically to gain adminship. This isn't a healthy trend. Addhoc 13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support The most neutral wikipedian from ex-yu that i have seen. Paulcicero 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Satisfactory answer to my question. A few concerns remain, but with respect for the neutral and oppose positions these seem to be old history. DurovaCharge! 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support. PaxEquilibrium is one of the greatest wikipedians from former yugoslavia. He remains cool and has a calm level-headed atitude in conflict subjeckts, not a nationalist and fighting for tru causes, and that is the bridge between serb, croat and bosnian nationalists that plaigue wikimedia. --Edin Sijercic 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support. Very productive, calm and neutral user. I can't think of any other ex-Yugoslav user who would get votes from people with such a wide range of ethnicities and political views. In fact, I would say he sometimes keeps engaging with users when it is clear they are not editing in good faith. This has lead to a few POV warriors cooling off and becoming normal users - just one of the reasons why I believe he deserves adminship, and would be capable of using it responsibly. That's not even including his massive contribution to Wikipedia (14,000 or so edits), on subjects that would have been quite poorly covered without him.--Hadžija 20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Default support, can't make out sufficient reason not to. —AldeBaer 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support I trust enough to support. I don't distrust enough not to. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to support per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/PaxEquilibrium#Problem. Good point. – Rianaऋ 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Too many concerns. – Rianaऋ 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support. PaxEquilibrium. We have had our crossed swords moments but he is an excellent choice. He will be surprised to see me of all editors support him but I accept he is an excellent and comitted editor. We share different views, and clashed many times on Kosovo so perhaps my support from the other 'camp' may carry some weight for him. Buffadren 12:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. The numerous bad-faith opposes below merit zero-sum support, IMHO. Anyway, I don't see any real problems with this candidate. Walton Need some help? 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support, I've only seen good things from this user. —Nightstallion (?) 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, very good user. Made very good significant edits to Balkan-related articles. Though, I am concerned about this whole "death" hoax and wish for a solution to the remnants of this hoax, which is still seen among the voters. --Montenegro 20:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support. A guy who keeps calm under difficult circumstances. Also, the amount of canvasing going on here actually convinces me that having this guy (liked by members of all the different YU strata) as an administrator would be very useful to YU discussions on Wikipedia. --Pan Gerwazy 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, Pax is an excellent Wikipedian who always stays level-headed and calm in just about every tough situation he's been put in. No mater who the editor he is dealing with he tries to discuss and work out issues with them where many would have long lost their patience with them. I think giving him the tools will be a tremendous help in improving Wikipedia, especially on the ex-YU related articles which seem to have plenty of edit conflicts, and certainly not enough discussion. Currently, it seems most admins who get involved in such ex-YU disputes quickly loose patience due to the venomous personal attacks and accusations that come from them and feel the effort is not worth it. I think Pax has the patience (and character) to deal with these tough situations and will greatly improve Wikipedia in a area that I think needs a lot of help. // laughing man 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I've had positive experiences with PaxEquilibrium; certainly better than with most editors active in SE European articles. Most serious opposers refer to the HRE incident, which is indeed strange and worrying but also quite some time ago. Now, if adminship were really important, I wouldn't be sure, but as it is, I'm happy to support the request. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I can understand concerns over the HRE hack incident, but nothing before that or since has indicated to me that the person is someone I wouldn't trust. The incident was bizarre, but not malign. In my opinion, clearly has the experience, is someone I trust, and shouldn't be controversial. This may not be the community consensus at this time, but IMHO that's unfortunate. I support (and if this fails, will do so again when PE is renominated in the future). Georgewilliamherbert 23:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support — MichaelLinnear 06:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - HRE's account was compromised. That may well have been partly his fault, but it does not sustain a finding of intentional wrongdoing on his part. HRE is the victim of Serbia-related editwarring, of which there is much on this website. I won't hold it against him. - Richard Cavell 10:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. We really need cool, level-headed admins who know a thing or two about the Eastern European region. I had been concerned about the hijackings of his previous accounts, which is why I hadn't voted earlier. But as he claims to have a strong password nowadays, and change it regularly on top of that, I have to say that he appears to have taken adequate precautions that that won't happen again. Errabee 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I do not think that this user will abuse the tools, so why the hell not? Ral315 » 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support GWH and Errabee have it, to my mind, quite right. There are surely a few (rather trivial) concerns that remain unallayed, but there is also much to commend the candidate, and, on the whole, I think one can conclude with reasonable certainty that the net effect on the project of PE's being sysopped should be positive, not least because his answers to the questions reveal that he intends to act with deliberative judgment and circumspection and, most crucially, understands that adminship is ministerial. Joe 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support the past is the past, but please, consider establishing a committed identity and don't give the key out to anyone --rogerd 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Joe I 05:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. I hate to oppose because I believe you have truly changed in great ways since your days as User:HolyRomanEmperor. However, I am troubled by your extremely high number of edits without any edit summary (see [2]). Because you are so familiar with Wikipedia, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you can explain why you don't use edit summaries more often. I'd also like to hear your responses to Samir and Nishkid64's questions, especially with regards to how you were reported as dead (see Wikipedia_talk:Deceased_Wikipedians#User:HolyRomanEmperor) and how your account could have been hijacked (obviously a concern around here with the recent hacking of several admin accounts). Best, --Alabamaboy 00:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts) It appears that Pax uses edit summaries extensively on articles, but not in other namespaces; this is apparently fairly common among experienced users, there is a recent discussion on RfA talk about this. But of course I'll let him explain himself. Grandmasterka 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my oppose to neutral. The low use of edit summaries is irritating b/c when someone looks through a user's edit history the lack of summaries makes determining information more difficult, even if edit summaries are used for all article edits. However, I won't oppose merely b/c of this issue. That said, the lack of edit summaries keeps me from supporting.--Alabamaboy 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Erratic edit behaviour. At Independent State of Montenegro (a fascist puppet state from WWII) he has at least twice inserted the flag of modern Montenegro, despite the fact that it is obviously incorrect (and he should be aware of this given his knowledge of Montenegro). Also, see Montenegrin parliamentary election, 1913 for at least one occassion where he has created a two-sentence, totally unwikified article. Also, apt to sensationalism. See Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates#April_29 where he refers to former leftwing Croatian president Ivica Račan as the "greatest modern Croatian politician" in an attempt to get more coverage on him in the news section. --Thewanderer 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose No explanation provided for how his password was compromised. I will (or a bureaucrat can) move this oppose to neutral after an affirmation that PaxE currently has a strong password (as determined by this tool or similar, reliable tools, and will change his password every 30 days to a new, unrelated, also strong, password. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose -- Samir 06:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason?--Hadžija 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I'm not convinced by his explanation of the circumstances of the death hoax -- Samir 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Previous POV history.... -- Ceha 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to substantiate this claim? Also, your last edit before this RfA was almost a month ago...--Hadžija 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I'm just not comfortable with the whole HRE death hoax issue and the general controversy surrounding these accounts. And the hoax explanation doesn't smell right to me. Also, this is the candidate's sixth RfA and I'm rather disappointed that this was not mentioned by either the candidate or his nominator. I don't think six nominations is a reason to oppose but I like to see transparency in admins and admin candidates and withholding this information gives me pause. Sarah 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The death hoax, I'm understanding with. He should've really been promoted at the third RfA - the third was restarted because of all the ethnic-related votes, and consequently failed because of the controversy. I personally think that he didn't fake his death - there are users out to get him. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. (Disclaimer: Although I used to be quite active, I haven't contributed to the English Wikipedia for nine months now.) I remember when HolyRomanEmperor died. I read everything I could about it on the English, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias. Now, it was a year ago and I don't recall the details, but I sure know one thing: the evidence made me conclude that he faked his death himself. So today a Wiki-friend calls me and tells me: "our old acquaintance is making an RfA again; since you were so heavily involved before, at least give your opinion now". So here it is, and you could get it from any psychiatrist: a person who fakes his own death cannot be trusted to guide others only a year after the event. --Zmaj 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you oppose him because yu were invited to vote and because of yur personal hatred right? --Edin Sijercic 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure of WP's guidelines on this, but I personally don't think this user's vote should be counted. The last edit he made before this RfA was on September 28 2006 [3]--Hadžija 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I cannot decide whether I believe HRE or not. (AGF is good advice, but it doesn't apply in cases of contrary evidence, and there is evidence here -- his story of a hacked account seems a stretch to me.) I might be able to support in July -- a year after the hacking and "death". I was horrified by that stunt -- it may be the single most tasteless thing I've ever seen on WP -- and would need to see a long, spotless record before I could support. Xoloz 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I don't like the fact that he changed his wikiname (smells like avoiding scrutiny from other editors), he had 5 previous RFA which failed, I believe people had good reason not to vote him then.--MariusM 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He failed three, not five, and of the three, one of those was a restart of a heavily ethnic-fueled RfA (check 3a - most of the votes relate directly to the controversy). Of the other two, one was restarted, the other ended due to a prank of the users death. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing username is prefectly legitimate and anyone can request a change at Wikipedia:Changing username, and Pax has never hidden that he was HRE, so I hardly think that's a good reason to oppose. As for the previous three RfAs, are you really saying that in itself disqualifies him from becoming an admin? A lot of the people who opposed back then were ethncially motivated POV warriors, there was a lot of vote stacking against him, and some have been banned. It would be good is you had some proper reasons to oppose this great user's adminship.--Hadžija 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If ethnicity matters so much (it doesn't to me), then look at the users who have voted before on my RfAs (and some right now (Muslims, Catholics, Orthodoxes, Bosniacs, Montenegrins, Serbs, Croats - from User:Sideshow Bob to User:Edin Sijercic). How do you explain that their votes seem extremely nice and flattering (to my opinion far too much), and how the opposers votes base solely on nationalist-motivated personal attacks and calling upon my insanity? --PaxEquilibrium 11:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I numbered 5 previous RFA (numbered 1, 2, 3, 3a, 4) and I read some comments there. If ethnically motivated users opposed Pax, it may be because Pax himself is an ethnically motivated user.--MariusM 11:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, it may be because Pax edits hotly contested articles - a lot of the "nationalist" name calling on Wikipedia is towards Balkans. As Protego said in 3a, "No matter how neutral the guy tries to be, the fact that his editing practice is so concentrated in one hotly-disputed corner of Wikipedia will end up in accusations of bias." Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 11:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If treated with respect Pax responded with respect, he was never twisted and showed a genuine desire in working with those like me that have different beliefs to him.Buffadren 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose. I still remember the fuss he created with his "playing dead" game. I watched the story unfolds in real time and I strongly believe that he stage it all. Even before hid account was "hijacked", he looked like someone desperately wanting to became an admin at any cost. His "death" and his extremely slow response to our questions (after he decided to announce that he is alive) made me believe that he stage it all.
    I really don't think wikipedia should risk with making this person an administrator. He just doesn't fit the psihological profile of a person that I would give an adminship. Considering how hard it is to take away someone's adminship, I believe that we have little to win (note that he can do 99.5% of his intented work here even without admin rights) and much to lose.
    Also, I really don't understand why he pushes this issue so hard? If this causes so much controversy, why not just give up and do the same work without those few extra buttons? If I were him, I would (for the sake of wikipedia) gave up long time ago. --Ante Perkovic 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't push anything. I was nominated by 3rd party administrators and myself didn't actually bring the subject of adminship. After my last RfA failed, a year had passed without me mentioning adminship and frequent mentions of other users that I should be an admin (like User:Xompanthy), and now I accepted a nomination. What extreme pushing do you refer to? Also, if you read the comments on this article, you would've noticed that I said that I will pull this RfA the moment anyone presents a good reason why I should not be an admin. --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, where did you gain your qualifications in psychology? Sorry to be facetious, but this oppose vote just reads like an extended personal attack to me. There's no reason to think Pax's account wasn't hijacked. Of course he may turn out to be a bad admin, but everything idicates to the contrary, that he will be great admin. If your unfounded fears were to be realised, he would stripped of his adminship, and that would be that. Also, your last edit was two weeks ago, yet you found this RfA very quickly, just like User:Ceha and User:Zmaj (also Croatians). Please forgive me if I am wrong in suspecting that you were called here to stack up ethnically motivated oppose votes, but that's what it smells like.--Hadžija 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The fake death and alleged hijacking is difficult to sort through, and remains a cloud over the situation. I am puzzled that PaxEquilibrium chooses to raise, in response to this issue, the notion that Ferick might have hacked into the HolyRomanEmperor account. Naming a specific party is a serious charge to make, whatever one may think of Ferick otherwise, and furthermore this claim seems to me inconsistent with the more-plausible theory offered on User:HRE. --Michael Snow 21:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That accusation has not been made by me. That's a possibility said by another user that I noted, because the question insisted on details (and I gave as short as possible and as detailed as possible). --PaxEquilibrium 22:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hogwash. By putting it in your question answers like that, you bring it into play. If you don't want that to be taken into account, I believe it's best to withdraw that statement. If you weren't endoring it, you didn't need to include it. I certainly wouldn't include things in answers to questions if I were up for admin that weren't things I wanted to be judged on. Philippe 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you didn't provide any evidence of who made the charge or where, the only source for it right now is you. The point is that it's very poor form to raise such things, even if you're just "repeating" what others have said, if you're not prepared to back them up. Do you think it's a real possibility? If so, why? If not, why did you bring it up in the first place? --Michael Snow 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A user that went by the name "Sad News" claimed that his and Pax's cousin, Igor, passed away. We all figured that Sad News must've been the one who hijacked Pax's former account through his edits, and yes, Pax's account was hijacked. Sad News was then blocked indefinetely. Now, according to Pax, there was a hoax on Uncyclopedia that was apparently the death of HRE, in other words "HolyRomanEmperor" (Pax), and it spread until it came here. Around the time it came here, the hoax was deleted, however, Sad News continued on about how Igor (presumably Pax) had passed away. It is quite impossible for Pax to have played a hoax on us because he is a well-respected user here on Wikipedia and wouldn't leave us hanging and completely confuzzled (hybrid of confused and puzzled) and plus in the middle of an RfA, he has gone through 2 or 3 requests in a short amount of time, which was a little unexpected. The last RfA, however, would've made him administrator until the hoax arrived. Now, of course, the one who hijacked Pax's account obviously didn't want Pax to become admin, so I rest my case. --CrnaGora 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that you know more about the scandal than me. :) I spent my days first just staying and watching as the events develop, powerless to affect it, before I returned as User:HRE. I knew that this scandal has damaged my reputation to a level it will probably never ever climb back, the fact that I am the victim rather than the culprit of this terrible hoax even adds more to this; this is why I was reluctant to accept (and refused in the end) the nominations proposed to me by several people in the Wiki-world. (e.g. User:Xompanthy's) --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "I spent my days first just staying and watching as the events develop, powerless to affect it".
    How on Earth you could possibly be staying and watching powerless in this situation ???? Maybe you were tied to the chair in front of the computer??? You could react like IP, you could sent private e-mail to some people here, you could do zillion other things, but you decided to stay and watch while few thousant man-hours have been lost???? If my account were hijacked, I certainly wouldn't lay back and watched tens of people waisting their time. I just don't buy this hijacking think. It doesn't make any sense! --Ante Perkovic 08:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I (hmm, *he/she*) was blocked. I didn't decide anything, but was completely decapitated. Just like one admin said on my talk page "What is horrible is that HRE might be watching this whole thing from behind, completely unable to do anything. I know how would I feel in his case" . I did try to interviene with all my powers as fast as possible, and that is using the other Wikipedia (the Serbian Wikipedia, for instance). Now could please tell me the truth and say if you were invited to oppose my RfA or not (to hear your statement, since User:Zmaj and User:Ceha are obvious results of Votestalking? --PaxEquilibrium 09:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked? Was your email also blocked? Or your phone? Or IRC? Why don't you just admit that you staged it. If you already admited it, you would propably had more chances to get an adminship. This way, noone will ever believe that you truly changed. Regarding votastalking, I found about this RfA as a result of my question "What's new on wiki". Your Rfa's has become interesting part of wiki folklore. How many times you failed to get adminship? 5? 10? I didn't get to vote every time. Maybe because of poorly organised votestalking? ;).--Ante Perkovic 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you're saying. Please remain civil, this comment of yours is not very nice at all. I will not admit it because that would be lying - is that what you're proposing? The allegations of votestalking are pretty high because you have only returned to edit here, and you must admit the presence of vote-balloting controversy, as per User:Zmaj's invited vote and the very high possibility of votestalking with User:Ceha's vote too (you all come from the same part of Europe). I would also advice you to refer to WP:NPA, because you're personally attacking me, especially the bit questioning my sanity. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I sad all I had to say about votestalking. I asked what's new and then I learned about this RfA. I really do not know how other people came here.
    On the other side, You keep avoiding to answer my question about being unable to communicate? For a start, can you please clarify for me who wrote User talk:PaxEquilibrium/Archive2#Alive this and following chapters, you or "hijacker"? --Ante Perkovic 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These following sources will help prove my point: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] - In all these sources, Sad News went around to the people that Pax was mainly involved with at the time and told them that Pax had died, a case of spreading the hoax. He also spread the "news" to another 5-10 people.
    • [9] - Pax never uses "en:User:" in front of his username
    • [10] - Pax is never that demanding
    • [11] - Pax would never say "wtf?" and "who the hell", plus his english has gotten worse ans we all know how good of a speller he is, a level-5 knowledge of english!
    • [12] - as I said in the above statement
    • [13] - why would Pax be talking about himself about his passing away nor the mention of his "cousin" Igor also passing away, too, very odd indeed. --CrnaGora 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even aside from all of CrnaGora's links, there's a link right in the General comments section to a much longer (and more confusing) discussion of it all. Someone (I don't recall who) mentioned Ferick over there, so it wasn't Pax just now bringing up the accusation, just him summarizing the guesses. Perhaps he mentioned that one here because it's not in the User:HRE summary? -Bbik 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so it was random speculation from C-c-c-c, who seems to have been an extreme Serbian nationalist who proved completely unable to work collaboratively and has been indefinitely blocked. --Michael Snow 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with C-c-c-c, but if I recall he wasn't the only one. In the end, I am at many good with Bosniak, Croatian and Serbian nationalists in Wikipedia (though generally constructive users; this one appears to be a troll). --PaxEquilibrium 07:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    C-c-c-c was the only one to mention it that I have been able to find. Again, if there's more evidence to suggest Ferick or any specific person was responsible, please bring it forward, because it might help clear up the situation. If there isn't, then stick to your retraction and don't make unsupported insinuations about people. --Michael Snow 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't buy the fake death -- Y not? 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What fake death? Someone hijacked his account and played a disgusting "joke", and because of that Pax can't be an admin? I'm trying to see the logic here...--Hadžija 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. -- Y not? 02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for thinking you wanted to discuss this RfA. I mean, it's not like you commented in the discussion section or anything, right? :-) // Hadžija 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he is the strong but silent type. — MichaelLinnear 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    /keeps quiet, flexes bicep -- Y not? 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that then a reason to block rather than to oppose his RfA? —AldeBaer 01:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. -- Y not? 02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Nothing in the blocking policy about blocking someone because you don't believe them, is there? – Rianaऋ 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT would be the closest - it caused a lot of discussions on the RfA, WP:DEAD, WP:AN, WT:RFA, IRC, WikiEN-l, etc... that's definite disruption, whether it was a hacker or Pax himself. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather thought this was out of the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:Dead-end pages, but OK. :) – Rianaऋ 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm silly, I thought I was linking to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. I should remember my redirects next time. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 03:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Oppose - I have no quarrel with HRE/PaxEquilibrium, infact, I always enjoyed working with HRE even when we didn't see eye to eye on some things, and in that respect he always dealt with me fairly. But all this business with death, account hijacking, accusations, etc. really makes me wonder if we will ever know what really happened. I'm just not comfortable with granting a support vote at this time. --Dr.Gonzo 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I am not satisfied by the answers to Samir or Nishkid's question, which appear rather evasive. I am particularly unhappy with the apparent readiness to point the finger at another without evidence. I am aware of the potential injustice here to a contributer who may merely been the victim of a nasty hoax. But I am deeply uncomfortable with this candidacy. Concerns over neutrality in editing linger from the last RfA, we have the mysterious "death", and now the apparently baseless accusation and failure to openly disclose the numerous prior RfAs as pointed out by Sarah. I'm not convinced this is someone who should be trusted with the mop. WjBscribe 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per WJBscribe. I'm sorry, Pax, I slept on it, and I'm concerned about the fact that you pointed a finger without evidence. I give you points for withdrawing it, that shows maturity, but I'm concerned at the thought process that allowed you to do it in the first place. My mother always says that when two things are odd, it's strange - when three things are odd it's coincidence, but when four or more things are odd, it's a pattern - I'm afraid there's a pattern of unusual editing and situations around you and I'm not willing to risk the admin tools on someone in that situation. Philippe 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongly oppose. Per previous RfA (arguments given then) and his current POV-izing (very perfidious and "hidden"). He places filtered and channelized informations. A person has been rejected 4 times (5th time somebody deleted my vote "oppose" because of "unusual circumstances" and transferred it to the talk page). Is that enough!? Has any Pax's supporter here read the arguments on previous RfA's? "That was long ago" is not an argument.
    The supporters only live in their world, without asking themselves what are those opposers saying. The supporters of Pax don't know the history of countries concerned in "problematic" articles, where Pax gave his contributons. He plays perfidious game, and those uninformed "buy it".
    Some of Pax's supporters are here, because they support his cause. It would be nice to hear Kosova Albanian's vote here also. We still have no Shqip voter. The same thing is with the Bosnian Muslims. We still have no any vote from them. Some of them have also few things to say about Pax's POV.
    Those who don't know him "get easily on the bait". Whenever Pax's intends to be an admin, he begans to "play nice". Do you know the axiom about wolf's hair and character?
    Recently, he became too annoying to some users. If some users don't want to communicate with him, he should understand that, not to persist on communication. Annoying is a way of bad behaviour. User's talk pages aren't Pax's noticeboards. He annoyed me (I had to ignore him or delete his postings, I hope he finally got the message), and, as I see, user Mig11 (see the Mig's reactions [14] and [15]..
    His report to the checkuser pointed towards me is special story. A try to kick out the serious opponent, which beats his filtered and channelized information. One of his the arguments of his accusation was that I have similar interest in a topic, that one vandal/trol had. But, point is, that he also has the interest in that topic - article Pagania.
    About examples. Here are some recent ones. On the talk page of Pagania, he persistently pushes the story about Serbhood in that medieval duchy. His lines "unified Serbian state", "unified Serbian realm" are open greaterserbianism [16]. His text about "autochtonous Serb" is greaterserbian propagandist POV [17].
    On the talk page of the article Ante Starčević he obviously doesn't understand the meaning of word racism. At least, his arguments are equal to zero, especially when dealing with such heavy qualification of a person. [18]-misses the point.
    What does this mean? [19]. On the talk page of user MaGioZal. "Croat, Serbs, Serbo-Croat-like peoples are probably all one people". You could imagine his "neutrality" on the matters of distinguished Croatian and Serbian language.
    On the talk page of user Sideshow Bob, he expressed again his greaterserbianism. [20], claiming that Bokelji "were and are Serbs". Despite numerous Croat community there.
    Then, look at his contributions on Talk:Croatian_War_of_Independence (section Relevance of Memorandum).(user Marinko talked with him, we don't have his vote here). "...Not all of Croatia wanted to secede, a large portion of its population didn't want to...." and "key fact is that Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia". Original research. Croatia wanted to became independent, to dissolve the partnership. Not to secede. Then this [21] They (forces dispatched by Vuk Drašković's party) went to defend Serb civilians from ethnic cleansing and discrimination. Total greaterserbian POV. Bosnian Serbs do what they want in Bosnia, and Pax speaks about "defence of civilians", defending openly greaterserbian politician? Any Croat, Bos.Muslim, Albanian will confirm that).
    About criticism of users that aren't editing on day-by-day basis: what does that mean? That they don't have a right to vote? Who says that they don't know the matter, because of that? They dealt with similar topics as Pax, so they know what are they talking about and whome they are talking about. So, according to supporters, no user can go on vacation for a few weeks (because Rfa voting period is 7 days), if he wants to vote on crucial wiki matters? Obviously, it did happen what I've warned in previous RfA's: these candidacy for Pax's RfA will be persistently "pushed" till finally the opposers' absence because of various reasons (hospitalized, private life obligations- children, some have a lot to work with no time to write wiki-contributions...but they can still follow RfA's), and of course, vacations.
    Arguments that "opposers came from the same country". Of course. That country was a target of greaterserbian imperialism. Laotans and Bushmans don't care a lot about greaterserbianism, it doesn't have any impact on theirs' lives.
    If some users like/love/adore Pax, they can confirm and proove their friendship and sympathies towards him in other ways, but not by giving adminship. Let's stay serious. If you think he's a nice person, that's your opinion. Stevie Wonder is probably a nice person in private life, but I wouldn't take him to drive my car (especially with me in it).
    Why is someone insisting on adminship of an user that was rejected so many times? There were and there are good reasons why he's not an admin. Kubura 09:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, man, what is wrong with you? I AM BOSNIAK (or my parents, if you will) and I completely and strongly support him becoming administrator, becuase he will protect wikipedia from the likes of you. And you now why you missed that? Becuase you dont care. You didnt even read anything, just write because you seem to be blinded by nationalism. I have seen you and you are everything that is described in the lies you propagate about Pax. You here have only disrupted wikipedia, and by your edits youre a clear (as you say "Greater)Croatian" ulternationalist. Im sure you feat Pax just becouse you think hes serb and just because hes not a nationalist. And what about other ethnicities? Well, I read Pax talkpage, and it seams that the idea of him being administrator commes from A CROAT. But I dont even now why I am talking this to you, because you will probably not change your mind when it comes to stoping your nationalist "expansionism" (lol). I've seen you write often propagandist things, and this is by far one of the most ones you write. --Edin Sijercic 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Edin, RfA is not a place for personal attacks on users that oppose. If you want to tell me something, send me a message on my talk page or on the talk page of certain article. Do not disrupt the RfA. Stick to the topic. And you haven't prooved my arguments wrong. Kubura 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you should learn that first. And no, I need to tell you here - because some people might actualie believe you. If you didnt notice YOUR the one who disrupting this RfA. And your arguments havent proved anything. --Edin Sijercic 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Edin, this is Pax's RfA, not mine. So, this is the place and time to say all criticism about the candidate. And, I tell you for the 2nd time, if you want to criticize my work, you have my user talkpage or the talk pages of the articles. If you adore Pax that much, as some kind of deity, then build him a shrine, but don't insist on his adminhood on wiki. There're other users on wiki that can be admins. Kubura 08:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've simply given a big list of Pax's comments that you disagree with and characterised them totally falsely (as anyone who checks out your claims can see). Apart from that, you've written a lot and said little. (well, you've revealed a lot about youw own outlook...) --Hadžija 10:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You think that someone can speak about "unified Serbian lands" (when speaking about other countries' territories) and lie about "autochtonous Serbs" in some countries (despite the fact that Greek Orthodox believers were imported few centuries ago) and then just get away with it (in RfA)? People that aren't from ex-Yugoslavia don't know that, and Pax is misusing that. And I've shown that. And then you say that opposer "wrote a lot, said little"... ("Wrote a lot"... Yes, wiki is knowledge project, not sheepkeeping. We have faculty education, we have longer sentences, we aren't shepherds with no school.) Than, you've said that Pax is productive. So what? So does any vandal/troll. Pax is "neutral"? You still haven't proven anything against the arguments of the opposers, neither from previous RfA's, neither from current one. Just by saying "he's neutral", you haven't shown any argument. Kubura 13:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your problem ("other countries' territories") is that you have a problem differentiating between the Middle Ages and the 21st century. Also, the burden of proof is on you. So far, you've made a load of hyperbolic accusations, and linked to a lot of Pax's posts which don't support them. The problem seems to be that you can't accept other people can validly hold a different view to you on certain issues without being "greatserbien nationalists". Labelling other good faith users is pointless and gets the project nowhere. And finally, for all your unsubstantiated accusations of "nationalism" - I urge you to look in the mirror and remember that he without sin should cast the first stone. --Hadžija 15:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose the candidate does not deserve to be an administrator based on his previous history and conduct. We just need to look at all the previous RFAs: RFA 1, RFA 2, RFA 3, RFA 3a, RFA 4 under the PaxEquilibrium's previous userid, which was unfortunately highjacked. Anyone making a decision needs to take into the contributions and conduct under the previous username User: HolyRomanEmperor. By having HolyRomanEmperor/PaxEquilibrium as administrator will only weaken the Wikipedia in the English language further especially in the subject concering: Yugoslavia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosina & Hercegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia and all what eminated from that part of the world or from the peoples that live or lived in that region. PaxEquilibrium has a drive, a miss directed drive. What is the point the person has gone through five RFA's and failed? HolyRomanEmperor/PaxEquilibrium as administrator will only bring more damage and conflict into Wikipedia. Vodomar 12:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Says another Croat who misteriously appeared here after being inactive for a month... Am I the only one who's becoming annoyed, or even disgusted, with this votestacking that's coming from Croatian users? Sideshow Bob 18:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does being a person of Croatian extraction make me less worthy or illegible to enter this discussion or voting? Also, I did not bother registering on the English wikipedia under my Vodomar userid. That was my choice. Who is to say that I have not contirbuted. as most of my contributions are in the Croatian wikipedia. project. Sideshow Bob your comments on this voting page, show that you have a vested interest or your constant referecing on someone's extraction only show that you are the one with the bias, not me. Vodomar 04:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First I was an inexperienced prick that barely knew what Wikipedia was and then because of organized numerous nationalist votestacking (with a similar thing happenin' in here, evidently). --PaxEquilibrium 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no nationalist feeling in the vote. You are just crying wolf, that this time round you will fail again. Election is based on merit and conduct. Vodomar 04:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak oppose - If you failed 2 RFA's under the normal rules (1, 3a), the second being just over a year ago - I think that this says something about whether the community thinks you can be a good admin. Od Mishehu 18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, what kind of logic is that? "10 people didn't want him to be an admin a over year ago, therefore I most vote against?" Why are we even having this discussion then? People do change you know...--Hadžija 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Sorry Pax --HarisM 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I've been following this for a while and I was trying to just keep out of this mess. Having said that: I don't mean any offense but, instead of outlining the pro's and con's (just a general observation though: the whole 'not a big deal' thing works both ways and if someone wants something that really isn't a big deal so bad, it's not entirely unreasonable to question that person's motives), I'll keep this very simple. Do I trust the candidate with the tools? No, sorry, I don't. -- Seed 2.0 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I am very sorry to join the ranks of those who have obviously been sent to this page to oppose the RfA, but to paraphrase Teke, even if we trust the editor, we can't trust the account, and that is reason enough not to grant the bit. Xiner (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. POV based Oppose I'm sorry, but the death issues just don't inspire the trust in me that an admin should inspire. Sorry. G1ggy Talk - Chalk 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per all above oppose comments. --demicx 09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Still too many concerns and questions. Of course, having your account hacked is a stressful situation for anyone. But your responses to it, then and now, still puzzle me. Also, while your levelheadedness is praised in the support comments, I see some of the opposite as well, in past blocks, in comments that we need more admins "desperately" or in requesting semi protection merely because of link spam. -- JoanneB 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No, no, no, a thousand times, no. Per any above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose just once (a 1000 times not needed). Why? Because of my perception (on the basis of the detail provided throughout this whole RfA) that I can not trust this editor with admin tools at this time. Oh and for those who are helping to do the bureaucrats analysis of consensus - I have been editing constantly for months and months and months.--VS talk 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral until you answer Nishkid64's and Samir's questions. The last time you died it caused significant disruption, it will be interesting to hear your side of things. — MichaelLinnear 01:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't noticed, Pax has already answered Nishkid64's and Samir's questions. --CrnaGora 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After I stated my position. — MichaelLinnear 06:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral per what Michael said. I would've supported in a heartbeat, but there is ironic twist. Just a couple days ago I was discussing old RfAs and who has had many nominations, etc. and HRE came up. This was with a newer user (not newbie, just not around then) who read the linkings and was flummoxed by what happened. I recounted the timeline as I remembered, but the most important part is that I felt there was absolutely no resolution to the issue. I trust HRE/Pax Equilibrium as the user, but I need to know why I should trust the account. Teke 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, and that "last time you died" comment was funny in that dark way and that it smacks of truthfulness. Notice that Category:Deceased Wikipedians is sparsely populated since verification is a difficult thing to do. Rob Levin was a different issue since he was notable. I miss lilo :( Teke 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending responses to Samir and Nish's questions. I'm prepared to accept that you were the victim of some sort of vicious prank - my sympathies, that's really very rough - but I'm still not sure. I might sit on the fence for a while. – Rianaऋ 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Switched to support. – Rianaऋ 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral me too. Given all the issues lately I feel uncomfortable with the history. sorry cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. The low use of edit summaries is irritating b/c when someone looks through a user's edit history the lack of summaries makes determining information more difficult, even if edit summaries are used for all article edits. However, I won't oppose merely b/c of this issue, but the lack of edit summaries keeps me from supporting.--Alabamaboy 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to sit on the fence and watch how this one unfolds. I have a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, but that could just be the burrito... I want to sit here and listen for a while though before putting my name down as support or oppose. Gotta admire you for giving it a go though. Philippe 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Switched to Oppose. Philippe 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral pending answer to my question and a more thorough look into what happened with the compromised account. ^demon[omg plz] 08:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I find myself adding a neutrality vote, even though I wasn't originally planning on voting whatsoever in the Rfa. I believe the user could EASILY become a good admin, but what worries me is the lack of confidence my fellow Wikipedians have in them. I believe that a good admin doesn't stem from editcounts, good work statistics, nor heavy involvement. But all those things are very key. But what they really need is trust, and the trust of admins and editors to not have issues, nor to have even the slight possibility of abusing the tools. I would LOVE to support you and your efforts, but I am deeply sorry: I cannot. It has become apparent that several people, including some who have quite esteemed editing careers here, do not wish to see you as an admin right now. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not give up; persevere. This will allow you to not only improve yourself as an editor: it will greatly improve your standing here. I'm not suggesting that you need this, but alas, this is only the advice of an editor at 4am. I believe you to be a good editor, but not in the correct mindset at this time for the tools. I dearly hope to see you around here more however. Jmlk17 10:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral The why/why not battle makes my head hurt. Dfrg.msc 09:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PaxEquilibrium&oldid=1258407716"