Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Larry V

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Larry V

Final (38/4/3) Ended 03:22, 2006-08-22 (UTC)

Larry V (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Larry V for adminship. I like his work, he seems to get along good with the rules and with Wikipedia itself, and he seems like the perfect choice for adminship. I just don't know anyone else who can do a better job than him. Larry V is the perfect choice. imdanumber1 17:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'll accept the nomination. Thanks! Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:12, 15 August 2006 (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 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: Unfortunately, up until this point I have not really been very involved with sysop-type tasks, since almost all my Wikipedia time has been spent at WP:NYCS. However, with several new editors making huge contributions with that project, I'll definitely have more time to help in such fields as:

• Deletion debates such as WP:AFD, CAT:SPEEDY, WP:CFD, and so forth. I feel strongly about having fluff and inappropriate articles/templates/categories/etc. floating around Wikipedia, and I would regularly make sure that such materiel is flushed out. That's not to say that I will delete articles left and right; while I tend toward the deletionist point of view, I would be perfectly willing to listen to reason and sources in defense of a seemingly inappropriate article.
• WP:CP and other issues with copyrights and such, which are obviously contrary to the ideals and goals of Wikipedia and often indicate the work of a lazy editor whose presence is detrimental to the project anyway.
• WP:AIV, WP:RFP, etc. In my opinion, one of the best ways to fight vandalism is semiprotection, and I would see to it that "deserving" pages be protected from the work of vandals. I would also be vigilant in blocking those users who blatantly vandalize and refuse to listen to reason.
• Checking over the general administrators' noticeboard, which seems like it could use some more attention that it currently receives.
• WP:RM. I've noticed that requested moves usually take a little while to be noticed and implemented, and I would work to reduce the delay characteristic of that list. On second thought… there are quite a few lists of this sort that need attention. I would frequently process these as well.
• WP:SPLICE. Something always irritated me about botched cut-and-paste moves; I would diligently work towards fixing such problems and straightening out edit histories, which are essential to Wikipedia's workings.
• Dressing up tables. While not an admin task in and of itself, and certainly not requiring any sort of sysop privileges, fixing tables is something that I enjoy doing for some reason or another, and is something that I will continue to do regardless of the outcome of this nomination process. If you will, messy tables are a sort of pet peeve of mine. Another non-sysop task I plan on working on is streamlining and adding functionality to templates, as this process is somewhat similar to programming, which I enjoy doing.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: For better or worse, the majority of my work on Wikipedia has been towards improving WikiProject New York City Subway, seeing as how the NYC subway system is an interest of mine. ("Interest" is an understatement. Try "obsession.") I've spent a great deal of time perfecting Template:Infobox NYCS, which I then applied to most of the articles about the 468 or so stations in the system. Much of my work has been towards some sort of standardization among subway articles, including intro paragraphs, "external links" sections, and infoboxes, all of which are highly repetitive tasks. Formerly, it was almost necessary for me to spent 100% of my editing in that project, due to a lack of help from proficient editors. Recently, however, several editors have come on and made tremendous contributions—most notably Alphachimp and Marc Shepherd—and I am anticipating that their help will free me up to expand my Wikipedia horizons and broaden the scope of my own contributions.

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: Like most editors, I have had my fair share of disputes/edit conflicts/what-have-you in the past. Very few of them have been particularly heated; however, I have learned from those few examples that such arguments are detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole. Informed, calm discussions are far more beneficial and generally produce better results. In addition, I've found that walking away from the computer for a while greatly helps me to calm down and open up my mind to others' opinions—which, more often than not, are perfectly valid and have a lot of potential for improving the project. I very rarely maintain a stubborn hold on my opinion for very long; even within discussions in which I disagree strongly, I usually come around and realize that my "opponents" (for lack of a better term) have very good points and make perfectly feasible suggestions, which I then help them to implement.

(Optional question from Yanksox)

4. Can you elaborate on your opinions on protection and when it should be used? Yanksox 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A: From experience, I know how frustrating it can be to have to constantly revert vandalism on single articles, time after time after time. These vandals usually refuse to listen to any sort of reason or warning. In cases such as this, I feel that semi-protecting a page for a short time can help deter such repetitive vandalism by discouraging the offender; if a single vandal is the cause, then a short block of the user (e.g., 24 hours or so) may be effective. But by no means do I advocate reckless protection of pages, and I feel that complete protection is almost never necessary — usually, nor is semi-protection for longer than a day or so. But brief "stints" of semi-protection can be useful, and can't hurt, provided that their length remains within reason.

Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Larry V (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 197 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 16, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 2, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 22.77 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 677 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 0 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.32% (16)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 4.48% (224)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 60.74% (3037)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 0 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 21.33%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 1.1% (55 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.26% (13 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.16% (8 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 17.58% (879 edit(s)) (452 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.2% (10 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0.14% (7 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2081 | Average edits per page: 2.4 | Edits on top: 23.52%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 70.92% (3546 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 16.88% (844 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 10.32% (516 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 1.44% (72 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 75.2% (3760) | Article talk: 4.8% (240)
User: 1.32% (66) | User talk: 3.7% (185)
Wikipedia: 3.78% (189) | Wikipedia talk: 2.22% (111)
Image: 0.06% (3)
Template: 7.92% (396)
Category: 0.28% (14)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.72% (36)

• See Larry V's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

I guess everyone else puts some stuff here, so why don't I:

• Edit count as of 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC):

• NOTE FOR VOTERS: I might as well make the most of this process. Regardless of your vote — Support, Oppose, or Neutral — please try to include a detailed piece of constructive criticism regarding my editing habits. I know for a fact that I can improve, and I would greatly appreciate it if you all could provide me with a quantifiable list of ways in which I can make better contributions to the project as a whole.

Support

1. Support A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support. While Larry might not meet some of our requirements for namespace edits (particularly WP space), I have felt for some time that he would make an excellent candidate for adminship. Larry V leads WP:NYCS, the project to create articles for all NYC subway stations and to standardize and develop them along the same format. He is constantly active on the NYCS discussion board, and is always calm and working to build consensus ({{RFA CLICHE #1}}). At the times I have disagreed with Larry, he has been fair, thoughtful and reasonable, characteristics well becoming of a future administrator. At times, Larry has even travelled on the New York City Subway system on trips specifically to clarify article ambiguities. Larry V. is an excellent example of a long-term hard-working Wikipedia user, and it is my pleasure to support him in this nomination. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak support waiving my criteria - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. I generally want to see a lot more Wikipedia-space edits than you have (per my criteria) but your answers to the questions leave me confident that you know how things work around here. I trust Alphachimp's endorsement as well. Grandmasterka 03:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support excellent article contributions and excellent answers to questions, particularly the focus on deletion. Sounds like a decisive admin in the making. Opabinia regalis 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per Grandmaster and Alpha and consistent with my guidelines. Joe 04:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Support Good edit count and time with Wikipedia. Wants to help in many areas. However, I find little or no evidence of experience RCPatrolling or *fD. In 2000 edits, I found only about 50 deletion related edits. Although I did find about 500 reversions using popups out of the last 500 edits, I found no vandal warnings and no reports to AIV. He needs to participate more in these areas. However, he is clearly a valuable and thoughtful contributor even without 1FA. He has edited many articles instead of focusing on just one. Larry V is passionate about the subjects he edits and quite articulate in reasoning with others. Review of his talk page and some of his talk edits shows that he needs to be careful not to let his passions carry him away. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per above. Michael 05:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. You appear to be a good user and will make a good admin from what I have reviewed. DarthVader 11:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - hardworking users make good admins abakharev 11:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support editing policy isn't neccesary for understanding it, so the low WP space edits doesn't really concern me. --digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong support. Your answers prove that you would benefit from the tools.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. I appreciate his honesty in responses to the questions. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Meets my criteria, no concerns of incivility, no big deal. Ifnord 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, professional enough. I like to see a mistake or two, becuase people who don't make mistakes have something wrong about them — they aren't human, and the human touch is key to Wikipedia. No offense to the users below, but the rationale behind the oppose votes below disturbs me. — Deckiller 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. As much as I want to offer some constructive criticism, alphaChimp has spoken my mind. --Gray Porpoise 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Moderate Support. Your responses to the questions have won me your support. Although you have contributed a great deal to the WP:NYCS, I didn't see many edits in Talk or user_talk pages, but it seems apparent that you have the knowledge and expertise to handle sysop chores as admin. I'm taking your word that you will start getting more active in sysop-related activities if you become an admin. --Nishkid64 00:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Zaxem 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Merovingian - Talk 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:37, 16 August 2006}
24. Strong Support. Larry V makes not only numerous edits in Wikipedia, but comprehensive and well-thought ones. He has proven himself worthy of admin-ship time and time again with his intelligent contributions to articles (as well as in the creation), his NPOV in his edits, and his strict attention to protocol that he follows. If given admin-ship, he would definitely use it to the best of his abilities to make Wikipedia an even better place. If there are any doubts about the quality of Larry V as an adminsitrator, one needs to only look at his NYCS template, his adamance in making subway / train articles (particularly those referring to the subway) of astounding quality, and the countless times in which he has stopped people from putting false / malicious content into articles. I would be hard-pressed to find a better and more qualified candidate for admin-ship, and I strongly encourage his approval. --Zouf 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support I'm bothered about the low number of talk page edits, to be honest, but I feel he has a good grasp of procedures. I hope he will use the talk pages more, because talking to people about the encyclopedia is essential to building it. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support I'm partially worried about experience when wielding the mop, but I have no reason to see why this candidate should be opposed. Yanksox 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support What particularly impresses me about Larry is that he is open-minded and works effectively in a team environment. This is highly important in an admin, given the additional power he has over other editors. Marc Shepherd 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Have seen him around on the New York City Subway articles, and have full confidence that he would not abuse the admin tools. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - though low WP-space edits, this user demonstrates clear understanding of policy. Kalani ^[talk] 18:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support per nom and above. Qualified user. I hope he will increase his article-space contributions even after achieving admin'ship. Newyorkbrad 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Note : Duplicate vote. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 10:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

32. Definite Support as nominator. Would make a good admin any day. --imdanumber1 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per nom. would make a great addition to wiki. --Ageo020 11:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Thought I had voted already Support! I was a little concerned about the project edit level, but answers to questions and contributions assure me we have no problems with potential abuse here. So, done! :) - GIen 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support A great example of what an administrator should be. SOADLuver 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Seems like he would make a great admin and would not abuse the tools. No problems here. Wikipediarules2221 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Has the experience.--Runcorn 19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Just wanted to toss in my two cents before it's too late -- just found out about this RfA. I've only had a few dealings with LarryV, but I can tell you that he is truly the kind of editor who is the backbone of Wikipedia, working very hard -- in his case with superb articles on the NY transit system -- to make Wiki a reliable source of information. I am delighted to hear that he is nominated for adminship.--Mantanmoreland 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   Masssiveego opposes most nominees, traditionally explaining his oppose in the edit summary. In this case, it's "3r-policy", a reference to the 3RR rule and presumably the situation described here and here, among others.--Kchase T 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   I warned him, so I should probably clarify. I actually warned the IP vandal first, but I saw the potential for Larry's good faith edits to be confused as a simple revert war. I wanted to deal with the problem before Larry got blocked, so I warned them both. I hope that clarifies the situation. In no way did I ever mean to imply Larry has ever or will ever vandalize Wikipedia. I think our subsequent discussion, as linked to above, bears this out. alphaChimp ^laudare 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Reluctant oppose. Fails my criteria, most important of the two criteria missed are the low project edits. If the nom wants to help in the important areas listed in A1, perhaps more time spent interacting in them would be appropriate before asking for the mop. Themindset 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   So, if he had made one more project edit, he would've gotten a support? — Deckiller 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Low number of project-space edits suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 04:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Xoloz. Dionyseus 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Larry wants to take on a lot of tasks, which is great, though I'm not sure he's quite ready for them. Looking through his AfD contributions, I couldn't find a single keep vote other than this quasi-withdrawal. Maintaining CAT:CSD or new page patrol is almost unreviewable as the only record is the deletion log and clueless newbies who see their pages deleted often don't know where to turn. I couldn't find any evidence of new page or RC patrol, so I'm hesitant to support.--Kchase T 04:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Looks to be a great contributor, but due to Kchase02's points and low WP space edits I cannot support right now. --WillMak050389 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   I believe that most RfA voters require many WP space edits because it shows that the nominee has read policies. However, Larry V has demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines through his contributions. --Gray Porpoise 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral, due to low WP edits. Good answers though. If RfA doesn't succeed, will definitely support any future RfA's of this user. Good luck.--Andeh 16:14, 16 August 2006 (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.