Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lst27.09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lst27 (3/11/3)

Hi. I am nominating myself for adminship. I have written a lot of different articles on different topics, especially people in politics (governors, etc.). I have written a lot of the MathCounts article. I also contributed to the Chinese Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. I have made more than 1000 contributions to the English Wikipedia.

I did not nominate anybody for adminship in the past more than 30 days. I have now changed my idea about what being an administrator is like. So please support me. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. Also, by the way, I am not<name removed> --Lst27 22:23, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am NOT <name removed> --Lst27 21:39, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Seems to have stopped the behavior that was problematic last time. Consensus seemed to be that if behavior was stopped, should be supported. Snowspinner 00:33, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
2. Someone who wants adminship so badly might turn out to be an exceptionally good admin, or so it seems to me. Everyking 01:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
3. Danny 01:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Even if you are not <name removed>, you suffer from the same disease: i dont trust people with such an obsession for power. What about getting yourself a boy/girlfriend instead of nominating yourself every month? Muriel G 08:06, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   While that did make me laugh, I think that's a *tad* harsh. →Raul654 08:47, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

   It's not meant to hurt, just a nice advice. Muriel G 14:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   That was unnecessary and immature. Irrespective of your complaints or their merit, you needn't stoop to personal attacks. Cribcage 00:49, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Again, it was not a personal attack. As for the immature I will choose to believe you were referring to <name removed>, otherwise it is you who is personalattacking. Muriel G 14:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

2. UninvitedCompany 15:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC). I am not prepared to consider Lst27 a "generally trusted member of the community" at this juncture. Lst27 appears to be editing in such a way as to satisfy the mechanical requirements for adminship (1000 edits and so forth), without truly embracing the community. His quite recent spate of inappropriate nominations of other users for adminship weighs on my mind. His insistent pleading for his own adminship leads me to question his motives, and he has done nothing to clarify what those motives are.
3. I would be willing to support you if were nominated as User:<name removed> and had all of your sockpuppet contributions attributed to that account. --"DICK" CHENEY 15:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
4. Crikey. I just read [1]. Oppose. - David Gerard 18:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5. Strongly oppose. blankfaze | •­• 01:39, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. UninvitedCompany speaks my mind. -- BCorr|Брайен 01:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
7. Deleting negative comments? Asides from showing a total lack of understanding how the Wikipedia works (bad), that pretty much goes against everything an admin is suppossed to do (worse). Oberiko 13:13, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
8. I recall that <name removed> other sockpuppets swore that they were not <name removed>. - snoyes 12:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose, unfortunately. There are too many questionable events in this user's past. RickK 20:27, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
10. I'm deeply skeptical of this user. Oppose. john k 21:05, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
11. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much -- Viajero 12:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm unconvinced that Lst has ill intents, but UninvitedCompany's comments resonate with me. I'd like to see several more months of good contributions before I consider supporting. Acegikmo1 08:27, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. (moved from "Oppose") If you're not <name removed> (not<name removed>—there's a subtle distinction), you're doing a damn good impression. (BTW, Lst27's last (self)-nomination might be instructive to anyone who's not familiar with the whole sordid saga of <name removed> and his odd obsession with adminship.) —No-One Jones 00:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   To clarify "subtle distinction" a bit: Yes, obviously this isn't [[user:<name removed>]]—it's user:Lst27—this is self-evident. The real question, which Lst27 hasn't answered (and, to be fair, nobody has asked) is this: Is (as I believe to be the case) the real-life person behind the name user:Lst27 the same <name removed>ander Douglas <name removed> who formerly used the accounts User:NASA, User:Concinnity, User:Perl, [[user:<name removed>]], User:Sennheiser, User:Greenmountainboy, and [[User:<name removed>andros]]? —No-One Jones 05:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   The real-life person behind the name User:Lst27 is not the real-life person behind those other names. I am not lying. --User:Lst27 02:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Thank you. I withdraw my opposition. —No-One Jones 12:15, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

3. In light of what I've seen here...I'm not sure anymore. Ilyanep 14:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Have you any other convincing examples of why you'd make a good admin? e.g. staying cool during hot editing disputes? - David Gerard 09:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I too would like an answer to that question before I make up my mind. →Raul654 20:19, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

    • As an administrator, I will try to do my best to stop the vandalism from happening. I can do that by blocking IPs and usernames, and protecting the pages that are frequently vandalised. I think that is one of the most important responsibilities as an administrator. I also want to edit protected pages, like the Main Page. --Lst27 21:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

      • Respectfully, I think you misunderstood the question. He was not asking *why* you want to be an admin, he was asking what you have done up to now to show us that you *will* be a good admin - have you been involved in any edit wars? If so, how did you comport yourself? How do you get along with other users? etc etc. →Raul654 21:57, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • I have done a lot of good things to Wikipedia. I edited a lot, and was aware of the vandalism that is going on, and tried to stop it by reverting pages and giving them warnings that say "Please stop vandalising Wikipedia. You can be blocked if you continue to do so." or something like that. Read User talk:210.54.22.243. I also haven't been involved in a lot of edit wars. --Lst27 20:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I have re-added my comments and those of others that Lst27 removed from this discussion in this edit. It is not appropriate for any nominee here to refactor discussion and votes regarding their candidacy. Such refactoring should be done by others, if at all. I ask that my comments, in particular, be left here along with the context in which they were made until the vote is complete. UninvitedCompany 02:22, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Moved from opposing votes, as the vote was withdrawn)

1. If I am not misunderstanding then David Gerard's link shows Lst27 deleting opposing votes. Oppose. Thue 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   You are misunderstanding - it shows him deleting a previous self-nomination when it was obvious that he was not going to get sufficient support to become an administrator. This is reasonable of him. Snowspinner 19:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

   Check the edit summary. You might find that it speaks volumes about Lst27's opinion of the community. UninvitedCompany 20:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Well, the edit summery "Remove garbage" is not descriptive, and could mean he regards peoples opinions as garbage. But on the other hand the deleted info did not belong here any more and in that sense was garbage. So there may not be reason to read anything into it. Thue 21:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Sorry. Withdrawn. Thue 21:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   No, I was referring to the actual text of the previous attempt. However, do note that in this edit, Lst27 removed comments from this discussion while it was in progress - David Gerard 09:06, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   He deleted a comment that was withdrawn. Although he probably should have let someone else do it, or move it to comments, it was screwing up the vote total, and should be somewhere other than oppose. (In fact, I've just moved it to the comments). Still, I don't see this as searing immaturity. I can't help but feel as though people are fishing for reasons to oppose this, because of a lot of bad past experiences. While I agree with not voting for him on previous occurances (And I am troubled by the lack of admission to being <name removed>, but I suppose I can admit the remote possibility he's not a rename.

   If he is <name removed>, however, I note the mention on his userpage of Asperger's syndrome. This makes me more inclined to give him a break as well. Snowspinner 03:38, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

   Having Asperger's syndrome would fit well with what I have seen here. I have seen actions from Lst27 which lacked understanding for what other people are comfortable with, but nothing which was neccesarily dishonest or wrong. I have also seen people assume the worst because of those things (as is mentioned in the Asperger's syndrome happens sometimes). Which right now makes me feel a bit bad for Lst27 because he seems to be treated badly without basis in reality, which can be quite a cruel thing to do. Thue 20:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Of the several aspergics I know, I can't think of any who would act like this, particularly in print. Even without malicious intent, the lack of social ability would be sufficient to disqualify - David Gerard 09:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Though not directly relevant as to whether this individual would make a good admin, it is nonetheless illuminating to look at exactly what contributions he has made to the Spanish wikipedia, since he uses it here as evidence of his qualifications. Of his five edits there, two have been to his eight-word user page. The third involved removing an image tag from an article, the fourth changing {msg:stub} to {stub}, and the fifth wikifying several dates. No evidence therefore that in fact he actually speaks or even reads Spanish. -- Viajero

The changing from {msg:stub} to {stub} on the Spiro Agnew article in the Spanish Wikipedia was done by User:Template namespace initialisation script. I created the article and User:Template namespace initialisation script was the one who actually changed {msg:stub} to {stub}. --Lst27 20:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)