Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pedro 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run by Dihydrogen Monoxide at 02:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive Nominations - A commentary and explanation

With regard to the unseemly numbe rof co-noms, and the concerns expressed that I should have controlled them. User:Husond approached and offered to nominate me for adminship on the 23rd July. I declined, explaining that I would not make another request until September. the conversation is here. On the 5th September Ryan made a comment indicating it was time for me to have another RFA - see here. On the 6th September User:Jmlk17 offered a nomination or co-nom - see here. After a weekend with ISP issues I logged in at 19:17 on the 9th September - first edit. At this point the RFA was created and already had a nominator and two co-noms - Please see the full history. At 19:47 User:The Random Editor added a nomination, advising me 1 minute afterwards here. With regards to User:Politics rule please see this. I have his user page watchlisted, and after dealing with all the RFA stuff (still with a sporadic Internet connection) I asked him not to leave, which seemed to be an intent. Pat clearly saw the other messages on my talk page and offered a co-nom. Per the conversation noted and also this one it was getting a bit embarrasing, and I did feel I was between a rock and a hard place. The next day, prior to transclusion, User:Hirohisat advised me at 08:12 that he wanted to co-nom and added comments at 08:17. I responded at 08:20 with this. Also please note that prior to this User:Politics rule tried to add his support in the main discussion - which I reverted here as I felt it was highly improper to start the RFA without it been transcluded. In the meantime I advised Jmlk17 and Husond as they had previously offered to nom and I felt it was discourteous not to. Jmlk17 felt there where enough noms (phew!) and Husond was on a time zone that meant I transcluded the RFA without him (due to requests by others). I did not seek these nominations - I only advised those who had offered to nom previously out of courtesy. So the irony is that the community feels (rightly) that the number of co-noms is distasteful (or worse) yet in reality the nominators were presented to me after the fact in four instances and in a situation I could hardly refuse in the other two. I did take the liberty of removing a !vote but I felt it would be highly rude to remove a nomination.

In summary, whatever the outcome of my RfA it would seem that multiple nominations is not just excessive but only causes further issues within RfA. I apologise for not being stronger and striking out or removing some nomination statements, but I hope that the community finds it was because of good intent, a wish to foster collaboration and good relations amongst peers, and absouloutely not some form of "glory seeking" or "record attempt", which would be disrespectful in the extreme to both the RfA process and the community as a whole. Pedro |  Chat  07:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum All the nominations were placed in good faith, and accepted in good faith by my transclusion. My view is that they represent the view of editors whose faith in my trustworthiness and ability meant that they wished to go a bit further in their support of this request. I thank them deeply, and promise that should this RfA pass I will live up to the trust placed in me by them and by all who have commented within the RfA itself. Pedro |  Chat  08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Pedro. I'm starting to feel a bit guilty about nomming...even though I was the first to nom...anyway. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)