Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lambertman

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.


[edit] Lambertman

Final (2/6/10) Ended 02:03, 2006-07-20 (UTC)

Lambertman (talk · contribs) – In addition to providing valuable edits on Wiki, on everything from roller coasters to game shows to Rene Auberjonois -- I find Lambertman's conduct and demeanor to be ideal for adminship. His experience on Wiki makes him well-suited for the job. Amnewsboy 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Lambertman 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'l just save some time here. I agree with those that say it's too soon, so I'll withdraw with no hard feelings. Lambertman 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support! Kramden4700 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support Naconkantari 04:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    This "vote" was added by 152.163.100.202 (talk · contribs). DarthVader 04:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well, if it was added I strike it -- Tawker 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. week support . Reggae Sanderz 05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, reluctantly. Lambertman appears to have only 800 edits under his belt [1], appears to have helped create no Featured Articles, does not appear to be a member of the counter-vandalism unit or any other vandal-busting team, does not appear to know the difference between an RfA and a Request for Arbitration, and even this request for adminship isn't properly listed on the WP:RfA page. User clearly needs some more time before pursuing an adminship. I hope he will try again in a few months, when he's got more experience.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Reluctant oppose. If the candidate had shown some knowledge of policies, I might have supported, but the answer to Question 1 does not seem to include any actual admin tasks. Not experienced enough at the moment, but the candidate is on the right track. DarthVader 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Very very low project-space edits is troubling as to the proper understanding of policy. Answer to question one seems rather lacking in answering what administrative tasks will be preformed. Haven't found anything wrong with the editor by any means. You look like you are capable of article flow improvements, something I'm not the greatest at. But perhaps not involved well enough with the project for the mop at this time. Kevin Breitenstein 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose far too inexperienced-recommend withdrawal. Michael04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. You have 9 Wikipedia space edits. Come back in a couple of months when you have a little bit more experience. Alphachimp talk 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. You need more Wikipedia edits to display familiarity with the process. Nothing wrong with you, just need more experience, recommend withdrawal. Themindset 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. (Don't want to pile on oppose) - You need more experience, come back again in 2-3 months. --WinHunter (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Not ready to support, but maybe I will next time. Mostly Rainy 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - suggest withdrawl and re-accept w/ more info -- Tawker 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral The answer to question one indicates no requirement for admin tools. Reapply in October-November when more experience has been gained.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Merovingian (T, C, @) 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I really, REALLY Hate to oppose, so I'll leave this as neutral. I see no reason to beleive that this user would abuse the tools, however, I don't see that the user has a sufficient grasp on Wikipedia policies, and procedures. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per above. --Guinnog 08:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, sorry, you have a good basis for being an excellent editor but I dont think you are hot enough on policy yet. + you question answers a a bit weak (esp: que 1). Finally your edit summary for minor edits is 21% which is pretty bad - I wouldn't normally support someone with less than 80% anyway... -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 09:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral per all above. Please try again in 3-4 months' time, when you've had more time to develop a strong editing record here. Good luck in the future. :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. per above. Please try again later, Highway Return to Oz... 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Username        Lambertman
Total edits     844
Distinct pages edited   396
Average edits/page      2.131
First edit      00:55, 26 August 2004
        
(main)  662
Talk    86
User    27
User talk       41
Image   2
Template        8
Template talk   1
Category        3
Category talk   2
Wikipedia       9
Wikipedia talk  3
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I can see myself getting involved in several areas. Among the mundane, I'd gladly take the time on the list of articles that need to be wikified, and those that need general cleanup - I feel that editing for clarity (and the removal of bias - not necessarily political biases, but nothing bothers me more!) is one of my strongest suits. I'm also acutely sensitive to the situation that allows false accusations, such as those about sockpuppetry, to be leveled at an editing "enemy" without proof. Unfortunately, with so much that needs to be addressed, some cases may fall through the cracks, and I'd like to be in a position to help some of those.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm quite happy that my suggested format for a worldwide The Price Is Right article was adopted, short-circuiting was becoming a very volatile situation (it's incredible that a game show can bring out such hostility, but there you go). I also feel this edit [2] to Fox Broadcasting Company infinitely improved the readability and quality of that article.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I find it's good to be very slow to press the "Save page" button and to re-read my words very carefully - it's often given me enough time to realize what really doesn't need to be said after all. I try not to let anything get me too stressed on Wiki - there have been reverts made to my edits that bothered me, but if I can see any logic at all to the other editors' argument, I either open a discussion, or I simply accept it. This is a fun and rewarding site to work on, but I can't let it rule me.
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.