Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lankybugger

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] Lankybugger

(14/14/10); Ended 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lankybugger (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate myself for the bucket, as I've recently become interested in helping with clean up and vandal reversion. I've been editing since mid-May of 2006, having recently become especially active within the Wikipedia community and been involved in WP:AFD almost from the beginning. I feel that I've been polite when dealing with other users and believe that I've been reasonable and demonstrated an ability to back down when necessary or when it makes sense, and have no problems changing my opinion in light of new information. I've done some work I'm proud of here and there, reverted vandals when I've seen them, and feel that if granted the administrative tools I could spend some of the time I currently use editing articles to instead take a run at the various backlogs which plague the wiki. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I would, of course, be involved in the closing of WP:AFD debates in which I have no conflict of interest, as well as getting my feet wet with WP:AIV and Category:Speedy deletion as these items are generally unambiguous and will feature little room to make errors. An attack page in need of deletion would be fairly blatant, for example. No doubt there are other areas which would catch my interest as well but between the above and general article editing I'd find myself busy for quite some time.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: There's no doubt in my mind that the two contributions which stick out most to me are the plot summaries I wrote for Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry 2, though both have since been reduced to a more reasonable size. On that note I'm fairly proud of the entire Devil May Cry 2 article, which wasn't much better than an attack page when I began and has since been raised to Featured Article status.
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: I have in the past disagreed with other editors and I will no doubt disagree with other editors in the future. One of my earlier contributions was nominated for deletion, a situation I feel I handled calmly and maturely. I've butted heads with A Man in Black a few times (generally over the now-deleted Metroidvania article), but these disagreements were handled in a mature manner by both of us. I make every attempt to see the point of view of the person I'm disagreeing with, and use Talk pages whenever possible to keep the editing civil and avoid edit warring. In the future I will continue to keep a civil head and make an effort to understand and respect my fellow editors and their contributions to the project.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Weak Support, adminship's no big deal. Your answers to the questions were good enough.--Wizardman 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support Great contributions to AfD, shows you know policy well. My only concern is the edit count, 1,600 edits in a year isn't great for an admin candidate, it works out at about 4-5 a day, however, I think you can be trustedRyanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support - A good candidate, perhaps a little short in experience and activity, but seems to have contributed a large amount to Wikipedia and is involved into admin tasks. Camaron1 | Chris 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support - as per User:Wizardman...--Cometstyles 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support- Worked with him on some of the Devil May Cry articles, not only did he raised Devil May Cry 2 by himself but he worked in a diligent manner with me and some other users of Devil May Cry Task Force to raise Devil May Cry to featured article contender in less than a week. -凶 01:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Moral support because it's not going to pass. I'm willing to endorse this nom on the "no big deal" rationale, but if the candidate really wants adminship, he needs to double the edit count first. That's just the way things work. YechielMan 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Adminship is no big deal. -Mschel 03:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Yeah your edit count isn't very high, but looking at the current support levels now, it's pretty clear once you get more edits more support will pour in. I think it's great you're part of projects, keep it up. Chensiyuan 11:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Adminship is no big deal. I see no evidence that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools. Frise 04:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Per Frise and WP:AGF. Wikihermit
  12. Support. All good editors are like administrators :) --Masterbobo 09:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. You once changed your vote on an AfD after somebody presented new evidence. That shows a lot of good faith. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Good editor. There's 50%! --- RockMFR 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Whilst you have been here for quite a while which is good, from the looks of things i would say you do not quite have enough experience. Also, your edit summaries for minor edits are quite low and so it would help if you increased this. Instead maybe try an editor review. Don't worry. Simply south 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    What is the relevance of edit summaries for minor edits to whether the user would be safe or dangerous with the admin tools? Please clarify - David Gerard 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'm sorry to do this. You say you only recently became interested in sysop-related duties. Your edit count is weak (I feel at least 2500 edits are needed). Sysops need to be able to explain their edits. I understand you have great experience with AfD, but I suggest much more Speedy Deletion, RFA, and HD. Also you've been active in January, then completely dropped off in February, then regain interest by March. I don't feel 8 reports to AIV is enough. Try to boost yourself in those areas, and people might be nominating you in a few months. Evilclown93 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    This appears to bias against editors with real-world commitments - David Gerard 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Too few edits; poor usage of edit summaries; limited experience/interest in general articles -- principally video games -- does not meet with expectations. Sorry. --LeflymanTalk 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Low level of activity until January '07 -- you haven't active for very long, despite your "first-edit" day. Project-space experience also less varied than I like to see. Xoloz 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I do not have any fixed guidelines on numbers of edits required for admin status, but your figure is worryingly low. It is not the figure as such, it is its demonstration of your involvement with and understanding of wiki policy. Sorry.--Anthony.bradbury 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose Relatively low number of edits in the mainspace, and the majority of these are in articles of a very narrow scope. I'd suggest taking some more time and try to expand the breadth of your participation here. On a more positive note, thusfar you've exercised very good judgment and procedural knowledge in the AfDs in which you've participated. Definitely keep that up and in time, I think you'll make a great admin. Caknuck 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose on the basis of a self nomination, this implies arrogance. Also, not enough experience, I like to see one year of regular quality edits and project involvement Rackabello 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Note: I feel obligated to point out that Rackabello has opposed on every self-nominated candidate currently up for adminship, and was described as "a brand new user who has done little beyond voting on things". Based upon this fact, and the fact that his reasoning is largely that "self-nomination is arrogant", his vote was struck out of another current RfA by a fellow opposer. The diff to this edit is here: [1]. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed - irrelevant to the question of whether the admin is safe with the tools - David Gerard 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose "having recently become especially active within the Wikipedia community" Alan.ca 07:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. I'm opposing because your edit count and pre-admin duties do not seem to indicate you are ready at this time. However I do not agree with the comments of Rackabello - you are entitled to self-nominate - please come back in 6 - 12 months when you are more ready.--VS talk 08:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, based solely on low levels of experience. -- LeCourT:C 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose for lack of Wikipedia experience. MECU≈talk 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, lacks of experience, try again in six months. Terence 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose, Only recent interest in sysop duties. And although I don't think edit counts are very symbolic of whether or not a person would make a good admin, they're not necessarily in your favor either. PeteShanosky 02:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Activity. Prodego talk 14:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Poromising, bu tnot yet ready. Happy to nominate you myself in due course.--Runcorn 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral While I have concerns about the WikiDefCon template on the user page, and the questionable gaming interest userboxes, neither of these is damning and I would not oppose on those alone. I might support if endorsed by a WikiProject and if the questionable user page content were removed. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The content has been removed. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral good user but your edit summary usage is poor, in addition to your edit count (including your project-space contribs) which is quite low for an admin candidate. —Anas talk? 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Your heart's in the right place but you lack admin-related experience. Try new page/recent change patrolling and editing the articles that turn up, either with categories and stub tags or CSD tags and associated user Talk vandal warnings/user education. The edit summary item can be solved by forcing them in your user preferences. Show evidence of this line of work in addition to your usual interests and I may slide over to support on your next application in several months' time. (aeropagitica) 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I have no problem with anything you've done so far other than I'd like to wait and see you do more of it before I support your promotion to admin. The Rambling Man 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral It is great to see enthusiasm for adminship, but you need some more edits. (Get more experience and in a few months, I will support you.) Captain panda 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I like your enthusiasm, but your limited number or edits and userpage show that you need more experience with the norms of the community.-- danntm T C 03:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I am very supportive of several statements made by the candidate, especially one regarding willingness to change their mind when new information is presented; this shows a reasonable approach and a firm grip on social interactions that I believe is a big part of being an admin. The limited number of edits is my only concern - in a few months, I'd gladly support, but am remaining neutral at this time. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. I looks likely that this RfA will not be successful but I hope you will reapply given that most of the concerns raised by the opposers are just lack of experience. If you do, I'd like you to think about your username. Admins are often seen as the public face of the encyclopedia and your username will be logged for every block and deletion you make. People may take badly that their article is deleted by "Lankybugger" or that they are blocked from editing by someone for such a name. So, although I don't think your username is against policy, I'd strongly encourage you to come up with something a little more serious... WjBscribe 12:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral Very likely to support with more experience. Johnbod 16:28, 16 April 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.