Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/L

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.

Withdrawn - Wasn't expecting this to pass anyway. I'm not the one that loses, anyway. --L-- 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] L

Ended (12/23/3); Candidate withdrew. --Deskana (banana) 15:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

L (talk · contribs) -

I originally joined Wikipedia in February of 2006. I made around 20 edits in all of 2006. In January of this year, I really took an interest in Wikipedia for who-knows-what reason, and made around 1500 edits (when you include Speedy noms) in the next couple months. I had to study for an extremely important quiz, so I had User:Kuru block me until the end of testing. Afterwards, I didn't feel like editing Wikipedia as much, as I had gotten back into the MMORPG scene, and was trying out about every one I could find until I got bored of them. I had still been editing Wiki every now and then out of boredom or when I saw an error when I was looking something up, but it was nowhere near the "on Wikipedia, doing Wikipedia crap" mode I'm normally in when I edit.
Of course, I'm a certified Wikidict, so I got pulled back in to it. I've been editing fairly consistently since. In the last month I made around 30 edits a day, although many of them are minor or fixing up a minor error in an edit I didn't see a problem when when I hit preview, and stuff like that. I've made a handful of disambigs, redirects and the like, a few stubs, and a couple of full articles.
About me myself, I think the best way to describe who I am, in the Wikipedia sense, is to say I have ADHD. I will take an interest in something and do as much of it as I can, then get bored of it, and within a few hours of being bored switch to something else. I used to do a lot of RC Patrol, then I did New Page, then I started actually editing the pages that had built up in my watchlist, then New User Contribs, in the past couple days I've been making articles, just about everything except *FAs and *FDs, although I have been trying to familiarize myself with them more lately, RfAs and AfDs typically involve a lot of controversy, conflict, and reading people's opinions- not to mention they require a lot of reading into the history. I'd much rather read through manuals for something than someone's opinion, so I generally don't do much more than leave a comment unless I have strong feelings either way.
Co-nomination by Deskana: I would like to take a moment to co-nominate L. I do not deny he has still has a lot to learn, but so do we all. I do not doubt that we can trust L with the adminship tools, and be comfortable that they will not be abused. I was talking to L about adminship before, and convinced him to nominate himself, but then realised that I should really have just nominated him myself. :-) --Deskana (banana) 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Note on my name: Someone pointed out on my User Talk page that it would be helpful to point out that I was originally User:Feba, and my usurpation request Here. Thanks for pointing that out, flyguy --L-- 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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: As far as why I'm applying for a mop, like I mentioned above, I have done (and will when I roll back around to it) a lot of New Page, RC, and New User Contribs patrolling. I see a lot of pages written by friends of gay people, bands that think they're totally awesome because they have fifty MySpace friends, and obvious copyvios that I know would be deleted by any passing admin, but can't do anything about. That said, I will admit I've tagged pages for CSD that would later be kept, or at least get sent to AfD. In my defense, however, I tagged them under A7, "does not assert notability", which they did not. In addition, I somehow got WP:UAA on my watchlist, and see offensive names there I would have no problem taking care of. Which is a very roundabout way of saying backlogs. I would probably make my first stops, when I edit Wikipedia, at WP:UAA, which is usually easy to take care of, then WP:AIV, and then move on to AN/3RR or CAT:CSD. After that, I would go back to my normal editing/patrolling (again, depending on what my flavor of the week is)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: That's a tough question to answer. There's a lot of different ways it could be taken. I'd like to think that my edits at WP:HD and WP:NUH, and of course to user talk pages, have helped new editors use Wikipedia more effectively, and more enjoyably, and they've gone on to write amazing articles in some life I've never heard of. Being more realistic, as far as article I've created, I definitely find the recent RevoPower article I created to be my highest quality contribution to Wikipedia, and my older Quasar (motorcycle) article to be the most interesting and informative. As far as helping the encyclopedia as a whole, probably vandalism reverts, and tagging pages as CSD.
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: Conflicts over editing is a bad way to put it, I'd say conflicts over content is better ;) In which case, yes, and I'd think just about everyone has. It's letting them get out of hand that is a problem. Stress, absolutely not. I subscribe strongly to Don't Give A Fuckism, and am far more likely to just let the article go and worry about it later than I am to get in a big conflict. That isn't to say I don't care about Wikipedia and it's quality, I do, however I don't like fights, as that leads to anger, which leads to things like RfCs and AN/I, and other crap I noted above that I hate because it can't hold my interest. When I am in a conflict, I generally try to use it as a base to get talks going on the talk page, and then improve the article.

Optional question by LessHeard vanU

4. Thank you about your honesty regarding your ADHD, although it does give rise to my question; given that you are liable to commit yourself totally to one or another element of Wikipedia before becoming "bored", and then moving onto the next area of interest, what reassurances can you give the community that you will not neglect the responsibilities of adminship, after a while, should they be granted to you? Do you believe that, given that some admins do go inactive, that it isn't a consideration, or do you think you should make yourself open to recall in such a situation?
A: Well, that's a few different questions at once. There is a lot for admins to do, and even more to do on Wikipedia in general, and I really doubt I would get bored with everything to the point where I couldn't help with some backlog. I personally think that taking away the mop because someone hasn't been doing admin actions is a bit backwards, since adminship shouldn't be a big deal, and while an admin should show a need for the tools, they shouldn't be taken away just because they decide to do something else for a bit. However, if an admin decided they were done living up the duties admins are expected to do (dealing with vandalisms and newcomers, helping to clear backlogs, being held to a higher standard- although I'd like to note here that's not that I think they should be, but just because editors, especially new ones, tend to do that-, stuff like that) or done editing Wikipedia, their admin tools should be taken away at least to protect Wikipedia from someone using their account to go ON WHEELS!!! or otherwise harming the project. I would be open to recall if people do not feel that I am performing as an admin should, or if I misuse the tools. I would also be in support of an admin recall policy, such as the earlier proposed ones for five admins to call another RfA, or RfAs expiring every year or so.
Thank you. Changing to support. LessHeard vanU 08:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Vodak

5. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?
A: Er, as in my real life qualifications? If it's not on my user page, I'm probably not going to put it out on Wikipedia without a good reason. Might I ask why you want to see it? --L-- 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Thesocialistesq

6. In your mind, what constitutes a consensus at an Afd? What are its fundamental elements? When can an objection be ignored?
A: To be quite honest, I don't intend to do work in AFD, at least until I'm much, much more familiar with it. I don't believe objections should be ignored though, not unless they're obvious trolling, or they have absolutely no reason to keep it. For example, if someone says it's WP:INTERESTING, their vote shouldn't be thrown out, because they might have meant to put it another way, or meant it in addition to comments saying it meets notability above.

[edit] General comments

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

Who were you prior to the single letter rename craze? :-) Martinp23 22:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support. An experienced editor who has a passion to make this encyclopedia a better place. Good luck L! — E talkbots 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support meets my minimum level of edit counts, etc. Veru helpful to have an admin with experience at the helpdesk (unlike me). Bearian 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support- nice user with good participation at AIV, AfD, and other areas. My only problem is the way he handled this little dispute. The admin had already cleared him, yet he kept beating the dead horse and kept feeding him. Apart from that, I trust this user. --Boricuaeddie 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support as co-nominator. No doubt in my mind that this user would not abuse the tools. This is what RfA is about. --Deskana (banana) 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    I assume you mean "would not abuse"? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    Whoops, I deleted the not thinking I'd made a double negative. Thanks. --Deskana (banana) 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Seems to be a good editor with well rounded experience. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. You seem to be a quality editor, and I trust Deskana as a co-nom. J-stan TalkContribs 22:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support as there are no reasons to oppose. A.Z. 23:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I trust the nominator. ~ Wikihermit 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    But do you trust the candidate? –sebi 09:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed. ~ Wikihermit 14:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. El_C 05:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Considered response to Q4. Unlikely to go ON WHEELS with the mop. LessHeard vanU 08:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Damn...I was trying to think of a good pun that said "support" but contained an L...but the best I had is "LOL, admin time", which just sucks. Support anyway :) Giggy Talk | Review 09:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - one of those users that I assumed was already an admin, seems that he would make good use of sysop tools. AndrewJDTALK -- 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose — I'm not convinced you need sysoping, you've made some good contributions, though. I'm concerned your not suitable for the position of trust (mainly because it looks to me like you've prepared for the moment, probably sucking up).
    • Firstly I note you've inserted self reference images into an article, that simply isn't on (you know full well to ASR[1]).
    • You also occasionally "forget" to leave edit summaries when reverting, or for that matter in normal edits -- when you do leave edit summaries I notice you can be rude.[2][3]
    • You also fail to understand sourcing requirements, how do you know they're bible quotes?
    • Oh and this shows me that right now you're not fit to be sysoped. Matthew 22:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • This image, which you uploaded, does not comply with the NFCC. Nor does this. Matthew 22:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • What's your problem with this edit? I absolutely loathe the fuckugly "replace this image" picture (even as to remove it from articles), but this piece of self-reference seems loved by the community, and isn't really a reason to oppose. - hahnchen 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
          • He did not provide a compelling rationale to ignore the guideline in his edit summary. Matthew 00:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
          • In order: 1- As has been said, this is not unusual practice on BLPs. Many, many biographies use these types of images. 2- Yes, I probably should've used an edit summary there. I have recently been making an effort to use edit summaries whenever I make anything other than minor edits, even if they won't really be helpful to anyone. Old habits are hard to break, though. As far as rudeness goes, the first one was pointing out the fact that we do cover that topic, there is a lot of room in edit spaces you know. 3- They're clearly sourced. However, the first sentence was OR, and in retrospect it should have been removed, and the other two quotes with it for being nonsensical without it. Hindsight is always 20/20, though. As far as the last thing, just saying "oh btw this shows you aren't ready" doesn't mean anything. Saying "because of this this and this" makes sense, as the stick comment above (in the support section) does. That would be a bad habit, although I personally have different views on it than other people would. Anyway, I'd like to know what you mean by prepared for the moment. I mean, I'd like to actually see some diffs. To be honest, I had barely considered adminship before today, but I was looking through RFA, and I figured "eh, why not?", I could do good with the tools, and it's not like more mops are a bad thing --L-- 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
            • 1: Sorry, not a valid excuse IMO (WP:CUZ-OTHER-ARTICLES-DO-IT!!!)
            • 2: Yes you should, why don't you enable the "prompt for summary" setting?
            • 3: No they're not, your making an assumption that they're bible quotes. Where's your source?
            • 4: Here's 5,000 edits, if you ask nicely, maybe somebody will draw a pretty graph. Matthew 00:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
              • 1- It's standard practice. It's not a matter of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That argument is not for this RfA 2- There was an edit summary, and it wouldn't have been triggered. I didn't type anything, however. The prompt for summary often gets in the way of small edits. 3- Again, I already stated that in retrospect the first sentence was OR, and the quotes OR with it. The quotes however did have their source immediately after them. 4- What? I don't understand. Because I edited a lot last month? Add on: I noticed your comments about the pictures. The first one, I was not so sure about, however it does illustrate the object in question where we would be unable to obtain a picture of it through anything but illegal means. I have additionally emailed the company to ask them for a picture to replace it with, as I can show anyone that would care to ask over email (I don't trust posting personal info on Wiki) - the second one was actually improperly tagged, as Compiz is i'm 98% sure FLOSS software, which is a free image. I'm not sure why I uploaded it as copyrighted software, so thank you for pointing that out. --L-- 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • 1: Please link me to the guideline/policy for the "It's standard practice" (several users willnilly inserting an image doesn't make it a standard). I never said anything about "OTHERCRAPEXISTS"... so not sure what you're on about.
                  • 2: No excuse.
                  • 3: No it's not sourced, you provided no source that the *book* /is/ *quoting* from the >bible<. You're assuming.
                  • 4: ... warmer
                  • 5: Your reply shows you blatant misunderstanding of the NFCC.
                  • Please take a few minutes to think over your reply before commenting, right now I just find you argumentative.Matthew 00:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • 1, again, not for this debate. As to the rest of it, you're just going over the same points I've already covered and explained, and making vague statements as to what's wrong with it. I have no interest in continuing such a conversation. If someone wants to bring up precise and valid points I would be happy to discuss their concerns. --L-- 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. The evidence Matthew has compels me to oppose. Sorry. Politics rule 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The poorly-written nomination together with the diffs supplied above fail to convince me that this editor would make a good admin at this moment in time. (aeropagitica) 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Poorly-written nomination" seems a little harsh, don't you think? --Boricuaeddie 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    Ignoring anything else, I'd like to know what's "poorly written" about it, or what that would have to do with anything in the first place.. --L--
  4. Oppose per Matthew. -Lemonflashtalk 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Due to civility concerns from these diffs: [4], [5] --Hdt83 Chat 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Matthew's points are very strong and thats just too much evidence to support. T Rex | talk 00:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Okay, I never oppose per Matthew, ever. In fact I rArely agree with his opposes. But he's 100% right here, those diffs are convincing enough to me, oppose per Matthew. Wizardman 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Wow. I did not even bother to check your edit history, contributions, talk pages, etc. I find your responses to Matthew stunningly rude. I cannot find it in me to entrust you with the tools. --Ozgod 02:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    Edit summaries such as this[6], while humorous to some, can be exceptionally rude and cold to the editor who created the article. WP:CIVIL --Ozgod 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. No, thanks. Daniel→♦ 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per civility concerns raised above. Jmlk17 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Daniel's diff. I'm sorry, but that is a terrible view to have. People who think that have either been banned, or had a cult develop around them that insulates them from all criticism (Yes, this is indeed a veiled reference, please complain about it on my talk page instead of here). I encourage you to think a long time about whether or not you should be incivil to those you identify as vandals. Your first question should be "does it help anything?" -Amarkov moo! 03:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    Those are all interesting remarks about interesting topics, but they are not good reasons to stop an user from having the extra tools. A.Z. 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yes they are. Incivility towards vandals inevitably brings one closer towards declaring people who just disagree with you vandals. And when such accusations are made by any established editor, people listen. It happened once a while ago, I predicted it the second time, and I see no reason why this won't just result in part 3. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    You want to prevent L from becoming an established editor, so people don't listen to him? A.Z. 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    I want to prevent him from being incivil to people he thinks are vandals. Failing that, I would like to prevent him from being an established editor, but as you indicate I can't do that. Thus, I say that he shouldn't be an admin right now, because he thinks it's good to be incivil towards vandals. If he changes this, then I'm happy and will probably support him next time. If he does not change this, at least he can do less damage as an editor than as an admin. -Amarkov moo! 04:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    What about if you tried to make people not listen to accusations just because the one accusing is an established editor? It's not L's fault at all that people don't have a strong independent judgement. A.Z. 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    Incivility is bad. Whether or not the worst effects are due to other people being mindless sheep, it's still bad. The case of justifying it towards people you don't like is particularly bad for the reasons I've been arguing, but incivility creates a hostile environment in any circumstance. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Per discussions about Sajeeb Wazed: [7], [8], [9]. A user who thinks its OK to tag a sizable, relatively well-written stub with speedy deletion without doing so much as a google search. We don't need any trigger happy deletionist admins who don't do minimal research before clicking, particularly those with civility issues.Recurring dreams 03:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    L was perfectly justified tagging that artice as CSDA7, and I've told you that before. CSDA7 is "No assertion of notability" about real people, which is what this was. He doesn't need to do a google search. --Deskana (banana) 11:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Civility issues are a major concern here. Try again after a few months and you may have my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Per the civility and temper concerns mainly. I think Matthew may have been a bit over-aggressive but L's response is the kind of interaction I'd rather not see from admins dealing with problematic editors. I also agree with aeropagitica that the nom is not particularly well written: I'd usually not make a big deal of this but given the bulldozer attitude displayed in some of the diffs communication skills need to be considered. Pascal.Tesson 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - per the difs provided by undertow and Daniel. Miranda 06:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I'm sorry. The respected editors above me have said it all (with due respect to the excellent editos who have supported, of course). Not at this time. To many issues with temper and civility to give you a block button. Best. Pedro |  Chat  09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose – My concern, “What happens when you become bored again” Shoessss |  Chat  12:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I don't get what you're saying here. Is an admin switching from CSD to AN/I a big concern? --L-- 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - What I am asking is that you made the comment; “…is to say I have ADHD. I will take an interest in something and do as much of it as I can, then get bored of it, and within a few hours of being bored switch to something else.” As an administrator, I would look to someone that has a little more commitment. What happens if you are in the middle of mediating a disagreement and you get bored? Thanks .Shoessss |  Chat 
    Well of course I'd finish the job. I probably wouldn't be mediating in the first place though --L-- 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose -I cant believe I'm saying this but sorry I have to oppose as per Matthew cause he has some valid points and proofs there..--Cometstyles 12:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - concerns over civility and WP:BITE. Here are some more diffs (note the edit summaries) from the help desk: [10] [11], and one from his talk page [12]. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Sorry, I'll pass for now. The extremely recent nasty edits and comments are unfit for an admin. JodyB yak, yak, yak 12:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose: Easy oppose, per Matthew. You should know yourself if you're fit to be an admin. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong oppose per Matthew, Daniel, and undertow. The candidate exhibits an unfortunately consistent record of incivility. I believe it is more likely than not that he would abuse the mop. Xoloz 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose There are too many concerning diffs here. I cannot say with any certainty that this user will not abuse adminship. Captain panda 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral tending toward support, while awaiting response to Q.4 LessHeard vanU 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Change to support above. LessHeard vanU 08:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. What is this? the_undertow talk 03:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    It appears to be a discussion between User:L (then known as Feba) and User:Proabivouac.1 It appears to refer to an earlier discussion, which arose from the vandalism situation with User:The Anonymous One that took place back in June.2 I'm not sure why the discussion ended up on User:Itaqallah's page? user:j 05:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, it was in response to a comment Itaqallah made on my talk page when someone did something very stupid. --L--
  2. Neutral for the time being, with support conditioned on:
    • Being open to recall
    • An explicit dedication to the highest standards of civility, and
    • A blanket mea culpa concerning any past incivility or hotheadedness.
    You've made wide, helpful, and almost always responsible contributions, but sysoping involves doling out significant authority and therefore significant responsibility. I don't want to see this rashness or bickering over a controversial deletion or a block. I'd trust you with the tools, but first you must show us that you're going to be more careful than you have been, and that you're willing to be held to account if you're not. -- The_socialist talk? 07:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    I would be alright with having adminship withdrawn if I was incivil in the future, sure. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and while Admin tools would let me help out in other areas (CSD, UAA, AIV, 3RR) I can still contribute perfectly fine without them too. --L-- 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, diffs provided by those in the Oppose section don't look too good. –sebi 09:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
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.