Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] LessHeard vanU

Final (44/16/3); Ended Sat, 19 May 2007 08:58:34 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) - I have been editing on Wikipedia since March 2006, initially as an enthusiast and limited (although eclectic) range of subject editor. When it quickly became apparent that my knowledge and sources had been exhausted (or were bettered by other contributors) I realised that I particularly enjoyed the process part of editing, and found myself gravitating toward the administration, policies and debate pages of Wikipedia.

While remaining a watch on my initial areas of article interest (Siouxsie & the Banshees, Autogyros, the Beatles, Autism, Mick Ronson, Penwith, Steven Severin and several other arcane subjects) I realised that my forte was not in the creation of article text, but in the management of articles. Much of my subsequent work in article space has consisted of typo and grammar correction, some copy editing, and tidying up wikilinks and the like. As I grew more accustomed to this role I became more active on the talk pages, making suggestions on improving the accompanying article and adding opinion into ongoing debate. At the beginning I took the stance of a new editor in a discussion, explaining how the casual reader might understand or interpret an article or section. This inevitably lead to a more experienced editor referring me to the various policies and guidelines to which Wikipedia conforms (I had, of course, already dutifully read the Welcome message and linked to the various help pages and then started blithely editing everything that interested me, like most). When I linked to the various pages I noted that these too had talkpages, and I was not slow to start contributing there. The exposure to these pages, and the ideas and concepts which shaped them, allowed me a fuller appreciation of the basis of policy and guidelines which in turn allowed me to better contribute in article and talkpage space. My discovery of the "Random feature" facility has also allowed me to spread my knowledge, and skills, into some dusty and obscure areas of the encyclopedia.

I am now a fairly experienced contributor, confident in my debating skills, people management and diplomacy, secure in my style, polite and firm where necessary, knowledgeable in respect of the Wikipedia ethos, as well as the policies. I interact well with other contributors and, while familiar with the various avenues of resolving disputes, I have only once needed to do more than discuss matters with various parties before reaching agreement (even if it is that we differ). I am seeking to expand my contributions in the management of the process and administration of Wikipedia, and feel that the extra facilities offered by Adminship will better enable me to achieve those aims.

I have (and continue to) enjoyed the Wikipedia experience, and wish to give something back. I can offer level-headedness, diligence, quite a bit of life experience, a suspect sense of humour, and most of all a dedication to the principles of Wikipedia; the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I therefore request to be granted the position of Admin. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 23:18, 11 May 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: I have no intentions as regard what kind of administrative tasks I may do. I do intend to carry on editing articles I find via the "Random feature" facility, where the extra abilities will likely prove useful, and I believe I should perhaps do a little less talking and a little more doing in Project space. I realise that people would like to see a commitment to XfD and the like, and I would likely become active in AfD, FAC/R and the like since I work best with prose. I would tend to leave the more technical aspects (Categories, Templates, etc.) to those with the appropriate knowledge, although I would always be willing to supply opinion if asked. I'm also willing to be recruited into one or more of the more neglected areas of Wikipedia, since I am a bit of a champion of the obscure and unloved. I really do work best in the background, using judgment, application, persuasion and common sense to create a better Wikipedia. IMO, admin tools are a means to an end and not a big deal of themselves.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are likely to be on some talkpage on a stub article somewhere, or on a user talkpage. A comment or two that, hopefully, provided someone with a new way of looking at a subject, or encouraged them in their work. As regards shiny articles that got to FA or GA with the help of my efforts... I was going to suggest St. Buryan, but a quick review indicates only one day of (intensive) SPelling And Grammar editing. It subsequently got to GA, although on the major contributions of others. I contributed more frequently to Autogyro which is unlikely to ever be more than a B-class article owing to the paucity of material available. With that article I did contact the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (the international body governing world records in aviation) regarding some autogyro speed records we had quoted in the article, pointing out they were obviously wrong. I got a very polite and pointless response advising the manner of publishing such information, so I waited until some newer (and more believable) speed records were published and replaced them. When looking at my contrib history the real contributions are likely to be in the talkpages rather than the article space; it is the way I work best.
I would note that I was an editor of The Beatles Newsletter (various) for most of the issues, and sole editor on a couple. I went out, found the stories, copied them out, reviewed the Project spaces for content, included it, created the editorial, pleaded with other editors to contribute, and presented the finished article for distribution. I am quite immoderately pleased with my efforts in that respect.
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 never had any lasting conflict as regards editing articles. I have removed vandalism on sight, using the edit summary to give my reasons. People have sometimes disagreed with my actions in respect of other edits, but either I deferred to their reversions (if well explained and good faith) or discussed it. As I cannot recall any sustained incivility then I believe both that there was not that much that occurred and that what little that did has not left any mark on me. I have, however, had some contentious issues regarding policy on a WikiProject. Ultimately, as the other editor(s) were not prepared to abide either by my interpretation of policy or more specifically how it was arrived at, and I was adamant that the policy, the consensus that created it and its implementation were correct, I (and others) withdrew from the Project.
The above is the only example of stress, and my response to it, that I can recall. While the role of admin is more onerous than of editor, and more likely to create conflict I have no qualms about my ability to deal with any stress that may arise. My usual response to any situation is to talk about the matter. I can, and do, get angry from time to time but my usual method is to be more polite (to the point of iciness) in my replies. Once or twice I have taken time out in an argument, but have always returned to civilly press my point. I do not, however, believe in achieving consensus by exhaustion so have had occasion to either withdraw from the discussion or to concede the point. Those few times that I have been uncivil (rude, once or twice) I have been quick to apologise to the individuals talkpage.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support per question 1. Doesn't have to show a need (and in any case, he does...) Looks like a good candidate. Majorly (hot!) 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Default support. —AldeBaer 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    With regard to several oppose (!)votes, I'd like to add that opposing because of differing opinions on certain policy matters should be out of the question. At the very least, politically motivated comments are not best practice, as they bear no evidence on the candidate's suitability for adminship. —AldeBaer 10:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    On the contrary, it is perfectly appropriate to oppose a candidate over an opinion on policy matters. I have known Mindspillage oppose someone for not accepting WP:IAR, and I have known Jkelly and others oppose candidates for wanting a more liberal policy on image copyright. People could well oppose candidates who think that people should be allowed to have FU images in userspace, or that editors should be blocked for removing unwanted messages from their talk pages, or that editors should be allowed to revert an article six times a day, or whatever. Apart from the harm caused by stalkers, the greatest harm caused to victims on Wikipedia has come from administrators who lack sensitivity. Musical Linguist 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    I totally agree: The greatest harm caused to victims on Wikipedia has come from administrators who lack sensitivity. —AldeBaer 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Notwithstanding that I disagree quite profoundly with Musical with respect to the underlying policy question (whilst it may well be true that the greatest harm caused to victims on Wikipedia has come from administrators who lack sensitivity, it is not at all clear that such harm has had any grad deleterious effect on the project itself; I, for one, think loss of existing and prospective editors and admins over off-wiki harassment (that may be faciliated on-wiki) to be de minimis) and that, as I've often said elsewhere, I believe most strongly that RfA ought more-or-less to be a vote in which only the (!)votes with wholly capricious justifications (too many vowels in username, e.g.) ought to be disregarded, I can't say that I understand why one would oppose a candidate solely or principally in view of the candidate's policy arguments (as against on his interpretations or applications of policy). If a candidate recognizes adminship as a ministerial pursuit in which one acts not to substitute his judgment for that of the community but serves only to divine for what action a consensus of the community exists and then to implement that consensus, his views about what policy ought actually to be seem largely irrelevant, except, I suppose, to the extent that they speak ill of his judgment [this was (improperly, IMHO) raised at Amarkov's RfA]. But, yes, Less is right; this is probably a discussion better had at the quasi-morass that is WT:RFA. Joe 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    (Er... This is all very interesting, but isn't this page supposed to be about me? ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
  3. Support, I see no cause for concern or indication he'd abuse the tools. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I've had good experiences with this user and see no reason why he shouldn't be an admin. Dina 03:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I actually like the answer to question one. It's honest- the user will use the bit as editing seems fit. If a backlog should need attention and the user is interested, the opportunity will be there to help out. In my RfA I stated my intention to help out on WP:RM and WP:MERGE, but I quickly found that that was not the best use of my skills after I was sysopped. Every little hand helps every other little hand, and the user is experienced, knowledgeable and can be trusted. No problems here. Well written self-nomination as well. Best of luck. Teke 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Don't canvass or anything, but that's an excellent self-nom and, checking the contributions, I'm seeing nothing evil, but instead plenty of good, high-quality work and fine, very level-headed interaction with others. Adminship is not a big deal, there doesn't appear to be a good reason as to why not, and if this guy wants the tools, he can have them. In all probability, he's not insane. Moreschi Talk 08:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. edit-conflict Support A Wikignome admin is not a bad thing and you have potential to contribute to many areas of the project too. Finding problem articles via the 'random article' link is also something that I do, but there are better ways to search out those that require improvement or deletion - new pages/recent changes for a start. (aeropagitica) 08:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. This editor seems mature and level headed. His contributions are consistent over time and he appears to have the interest of the 'pedia at heart. I am confident that when he does use the tools they will be used appropriately. JodyB talk 12:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. I have worked with this user extensively on WP:BEATLES and he makes me laugh, consistently. Always quick with a friendly quip or a bit of banter, he isn't just about that, though, he knows why we are here and he buckles down and gets shedfuls of work done. I think he's a damnfool for wanting to be an admin so he can spend more time mopping and less time writing quality articles but I think he'll be a fine one and I support. Oh, and if we have to, I expect Kingboyk and I can flange up an 'endorsement' from the "The Beatles" project for Less... but don't get me started on the/The project controversy just at the moment, hm? ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Gosh, an endorsement by any one of Ron, Dirk, Stig or Barry Wom would be fantastic! (I'd by grateful if you wouldn't mention this to Leggy; bit of history there, doncha know?) Er... the Who? LessHeard vanU 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably, yes, but he'd have to rejoin it first! --kingboyk 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Wikipedia edits are low, but Wikipedia talk edits are high. I will support. Captain panda 13:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Incidental usage of tools is still usage of tools... as in, no one has to do only administrative tasks. If LessHeard vanU deletes even one article a day, it'll be one less for everyone else. Plus, we wouldn't want to cut into his fantastic article writing :) Sensible bloke, can be trusted with the tools. Don't need anything else. – Rianaऋ 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per Riana; she said exactly what I was thinking. Walton Need some help? 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support sound editor. I'm sure he'll find helpful ways to use the tools. Pascal.Tesson 17:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Being an admin is no big deal. TTalk to me 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support No concerns with this user at this time. -- Nick t 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support per Malevious. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Good editor, can be trusted with the tools. --kingboyk 19:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Good editor, enough experience. Very (too?) communicative. :) Liked answer to Q1. - TwoOars (T | C) 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support per question 1. I don't think that a person needs to demonstrate a specific need for the sysop tools, I trust that they will do an excellent job as a sysop. Neranei 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I believe the communication skills of this editor will be an asset with regards to administrative tasks.--Xnuala (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support when you were nominated for this RFA, God smiled --Infrangible 17:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support based on experience of user, SqueakBox 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Will be a fair admin. fair as in acting fairly, not fair as in ok :) daveh4h 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Rettetast 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support I like admins that are primarily contributors, after all ,that's what we're doing here.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 10:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. PeaceNT 11:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support an excellent self-nomination. No issues here. Acalamari 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support See no reason to oppose. Frise 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support No reason will not make good admin. Davewild 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Seems like a good editor who will make a good admin. Bucketsofg 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support An excellent candidate.--Runcorn 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support A good candidate. --A. B. (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    Support Appears to be a strong candidate who is respectful in presenting his opinions. 75.23.155.218 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, only registered and logged-in users may comment in this section. —AldeBaer 08:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support, overall an excellent candidate. I do respect the concerns raised by Musical Linguist below, but I think it is simply a disagreement over approach to policy matters. --Spike Wilbury 03:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Seems like a very intelligent and level-headed contributor who is unlikely to abuse the tools. I share Spike Wilbury's sentiments regarding the concerns raised by Musical Linguist. Kla'quot 05:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support — MichaelLinnear 06:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. I see no reason not to give this user the tools.--Wizardman 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. I like the calm, sensitive, and reasoned responses to the criticisms listed below. Cla68 22:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. Firm support inasmuch as the candidate seems possessed of the reasoned judgment, deliberative disposition, and principally civil demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that it seems quite likely that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive. I am altogether unconcerned by the issues raised by MusicalLinguist and FNMF, and I think the candidate well to apprehend for what constructions of WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP a consensus exists. Joe 23:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per much of the above; I'm not convinced by the opposes. Trebor 00:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support, good editor. Everyking 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - the issues brought up by the oppose voters are valid, but not as important that they should affect the prospect of this capable user becoming an admin. I realize that emotions run strong on this issue, but opposing, in a process like this, a person with some vague connotation to discussing privacy violations is not going to help anyone, let alone Wikipedia. I doubt it has. GracenotesT § 03:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  44. The issues brought up below are serious, and that LessHeard's position on this issue is unacceptable. However, I believe that LessHeard is capable of understanding that Wikipedia policy and community opinion mandate an approach different from that which he recommends. (To put it another way, I don't believe that his opinion on this issue would be detectable from his administrative log, which is good enough to award sysop status.) Christopher Parham (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose per answer to Q1. Doesn't show a need for the tools. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I also have to add this [1] to my reason for oppose. Not all English speaking editors live in countries like the USA. There are some editors in countries where if their identity was discovered their lives would be in danger. The safety of a minority group shouldn't be over looked simply because they are a minority group in the community. I was considering changing my oppose to neutral but after reading that I cannot support an editor who believes the safety of a group of people isn't important enough to add into policy. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Quite a silly oppose - we're not promoting admins on some sort of quota system here, there's no reason not to promote any knowledgeable and trustworthy editor, an extra pair of hands to call on is something nobody should be turning down. -- Nick t 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I agree strongly with what Nick has said above me. Walton Need some help? 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. As a victim of very severe real-life stalking, which resulted from a Wikipedian discovering my personal details, and which extended to my family (wrecking my mother's health) and my work colleagues, I consider that solidarity, concern, and sensitivity are among the most essential qualities in administrators, since they have the power to delete or undelete harassment, to block or unblock stalkers, and to protect or unprotect pages which are targetted by stalkers. Having read the comments of this candidate, where he doesn't seem to take the danger and distress of victims very seriously, or to think that their personal security should trump the freedom of contributors who may want to post links to stalking sites (or perhaps the freedom of contributors who may wish to visit these sites without having links removed), [2] [3] [4] I would not be happy trusting this user with extra tools. I am not posting a "strong oppose", as I do not think this candidate thinks it's a good thing to investigate private lives of Wikipedians and to publish the results. But I certainly do not see that he is likely to show any kindness or support for people who are being so badly violated, and an admin with his attitude is worse than a user with his attitude. Musical Linguist 12:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry that my comments regarding linking to sites that contain attack pages have been interpreted as a lack of concern for the victims of stalking and/or trolling. I do have sympathy for all people who have had personal details used against them, as I have been trolled elsewhere regarding my sons autism and my likely genetic contribution to his condition. I recognise that other people can be more sensitive to trolling than I, and actual stalking is an entirely different matter. I agree that personal attacks are completely unacceptable and that there should be no linking to attack pages, and I remove these whenever I find them, but I also believe that there is always a possibility that a site that also hosts attack pages may be linked to in exceptional circumstances. I do so as I am concerned that Wikipedia is able to use the best resources available, where appropriate.
    However, you are perfectly correct in bringing this to the attention of this RfA. Perhaps I still need to make efforts to ensure people realise that my decisions and arguments are for what I believe to be the best for the majority, but that I appreciate the concerns of everyone when considering those decisions. LessHeard vanU 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    You "remove these whenever [you] find them"? Can you provide evidence of that? Feel free to send a few diffs by private e-mail, if giving evidence would bring further publicity on personal details of users. Frankly, after the comments you made, I would be quite surprised to see evidence that you removed such links. As one who was badly stalked by a sexual pervert who created a website devoted to his sexual fantasies about me, with all my personal details and information (some accurate, some inaccurate) about my workplace, my superior, my former violin teacher, students, my parents, my father's students, even what was then the address and phone number of my parents, and then posted links to it all over Wikipedia, and recalling how my mother became so terrified that she wouldn't answer the phone in her own house, I'm quite unimpressed with any Wikipedian who thinks that the security of such victims shouldn't interfere with the freedom of users, with regard to linking to stalking websites. Musical Linguist 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    It isn't much, but this is the most recent of likely few reverts of a personal attack I have [[5]] that I could find in my contrib history. I haven't previously tagged any specifically as PA, just as vandalism reverts or similar. In fact, I was getting quite anxious that I wouldn't locate any at all. I am quite prepared to suggest that I should have said "would remove these whenever I found them...", but I maintain that I have zero tolerance to personal attacks and would not permit the linking to attack pages (and would block those who do). You and I disagree on whether there is likely to be any benefit in linking to sites which which contains or hosts such pages. I can respect your view, and sympathise with the reasons for it, while holding a different opinion. I think we are together in solidarity in wanting what is best for WP, but differ in how it is best achieved.LessHeard vanU 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The links that User:Musical Linguist refers to show no gross policy violations, they are simply examples of the differing opinion that Musical Linguist and LessHeard vanU have regarding a particular policy. I personally don't interpret those links or any of his comments as insensitive towards users. However, it is her right to oppose based on a difference in policy opinion, as it is every other users right, and I respect that. Nevertheless, people debating a particular policy do so in good faith, and I believe that LessHeard vanU's opinion is based on what he thinks is best for Wikipedia. daveh4h 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    It does not matter that there is "no gross policy violation". Personally, I'd be much more tolerant of breaches of some of our less inspiring policies than I am of the opinions expressed in the diffs given. Grace Note 05:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    You are entitled to oppose on any criteria you desire, such as amount of user boxes, user page design, or, as in some cases here, a differing opinion. Others are free to determine how sound your criteria is. daveh4h 05:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Musical Linguist. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Musical Linguist. Personal attacks are unacceptable, and that includes promoting them. Linking to an attack site is promoting the attack and is tantamount to attacking. Yes, anyone can google some keywords and find just about anything that's posted online, so the issue is not how many clicks are needed to reach the attack material or the attack site. For me the issue is simple: by providing a link we are promoting the attack. There is no need to provide any link to such site, as it can be emailed when necessary for investigation to ArbCom etc. It boils down to attitude towards the victim: if you really care about the victim's feelings, you minimize the attacks. Any link on Wikipedia (whether 'hot' or 'cold') to an attack site, is one more attack from the victim's perspective. Crum375 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    (response to both of the above)While I agree that we differ on whether sites which contain attack pages should ever be linked to, I am uncertain to which point you are addressing regarding unsuitability for adminship. Is it a lack of sensitivity when dealing with some, many or all editors, or in respect of my views, or lack of confidence that I would be able to use the extra tools in an unbiased manner should I be granted them. I would be grateful if this could be made clear, with supporting diffs, so I might comment. LessHeard vanU 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    My own concern is lack of judgment and sensitivity to attack victims. You don't seem to realize that to an attack victim, every single attack counts. That includes each time such an attack, or attack site, is linked to or promoted from within Wikipedia, and hurts even more when a fellow wikipedian does it. Not realizing that this causes harassment and pain, and not realizing that any useful information (e.g. needed for ArbCom purposes) can be quietly sent via email to the parties that require it on a 'need to know' basis, demonstrates a lack of judgment and sensitivity, which are crucial attributes for an admin, in my opinion. Crum375 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I have doubts that this user is sufficiently sensitive to certain policy matters, especially WP:BLP. This opinion derives from user's arguments attempting to justify inclusion of unsubstantiated malicious allegations in the Richard Gere entry. FNMF 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    I recognise that an RfA is not an appropriate forum in which to discuss matters outside of adminship and the suitability of the candidate I would like to correct a couple of inaccurate inferences (doubtless good faith errors) by FNMF; I have not edited the Richard Gere article, but took part in debate at the talkpage (and other venues) regarding application of policy in respect of the article, and, it is not an "unsubstantiated malicious allegations" that The TimesTimes editorial carried an advert paid for by Gere which was intended to rebut 'unsubstantiated malicious allegations' about his sexuality. It is this last point, which I have argued establishes notability, which instead has been my position on the matter, as exampled bydiff 1&diff 2. I would also draw peoples attention todiff 3 where I subsequently withdrew from the discussion in an attempt to help close the debate, despite continuing to believe in my understanding of the matter. I feel that this instead shows a willingness to promote the interests of Wikipedia over that of my own.
    I fail to understand the substance of the above 3 oppose votes. Is it that I have opinions, that I have opinions that are dissimilar to the opposers, or that I am prepared to debate them as vigorously as WP:Good faith and WP:Civil permits? As this will not change whether I am granted access to the mop or not I cannot see how it is germane (although I realise that this is not my decision). If it is a matter of style then I am also aware that being an admin will inevitably mean contact with persons with differing views and will have to deal with far more uncivil situations than discussions of the forming and/or interpretation of policy, and a strong show of character may be required. If there are any examples that can be given that show I have acted improperly or outside of the rules of Wikipedia I would be interested to see them. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    There were no "inaccuracies" in my explanation. I didn't say that you edited the Gere entry, and I continue to believe that your arguments amounted to an attempt to include unsubstantiated malicious allegations. Your argument in that debate that "no consensus" meant the material should be included showed, in my opinion, a deficient and insensitive understanding of WP:BLP, which is a policy I rank very highly. An admin who insists on this kind of lenient interpretation of WP:BLP concerns me. FNMF 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying the substance your point. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Musical Linguist. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Musical Linguist. Just so we're clear, the lack of sensitivity and solidarity are my grounds for opposition, not any particular concern that you'd misuse the tools. I also do not like the tone you've taken in your responses here. You do not have to have broken any "rules" to be opposed; you need only have done things that make us feel you are not entirely to be trusted. Grace Note 05:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Same -- Y not? 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Musical Linguist. Prodego talk 02:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Musical Linguist's concerns are of the type that I can't overlook. Daniel 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I am concerned by Musical Linguists comments and not persuaded by the response to them. WjBscribe 04:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. I'm a bit concerned about the fellow's demeanour when responding to some of the opposition, specifically his tone which leads me to believe he's more concerned with process than doing the right thing gaillimhConas tá tú? 04:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC
  13. Musical Linguist's point is quite sound, and I can't support at this time. Sorry. Ral315 » 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Musical Linguist. Sarah 07:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose With regret as Musical Linguist says it all. The guy is a good editor and obviously committed to Wikipedia but admin powers require the ability to put aside ones own POV. In some situations there is no balance to be found as only one side is fully aware of the consequences so their views must be paramount. Sophia 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - I'm really sorry, but I'll have to oppose for now. Forgetting about Music's oppose above for now, judging from your user page, you have only written 3 articles (I could be wrong...)? You also have far less than the ideal amount of Wikipedia Namespace edits to your name. These things added with Music's oppose have forced me to oppose as well. I'm sorry, but I'm sure if improve on the things that others have said above, you'll make adminship next time easily (if you fail this one of course!) :) Cheers, Spawn Man 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: While you have the experience and your edit summary usage is also nice I am not quite sure if I am happy with the answer to Q1. Sounds like you just want the tools to have them.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd like to take the opportunity here to more fully explain my answer to Q1. First, I believe that adminship allows editors access to tools that, originally, they were to have had when WP was created. It could not have been intended that all tools were to be used at every available opportunity, but as circumstances demanded. However, the potential of damage by misuse of the tools meant that there needed to be a restriction of access. Once an editor has demonstrated a level of trustworthiness then access may be allowed. It doesn't follow that the newly sysopped editor must use all of the buttons. It is as much on that criteria I have made my request for adminship.
    • Notwithstanding the above, it would be perverse to have the kit and not use any of it. Once the tools are available it would be then the time to see how best the individual editor should use them. Also, IMO, it behoves a new administrator to repay the trust shown in granting access to the buttons by exercising some of the new powers in an appropriate manner, and in areas where such tools are needed. Rather than being lead by the availability of the mop I feel it would make more sense to be available to help where required. That is what I intend to do, should I be granted the buttons then I will be free to help in any area that needs a newbie admin.
    • Finally, do I want the dubious status of Admin, and all that that entails? Oh, very yes! LessHeard vanU 09:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I appreciate your comments and while I do think you are trustworthy, it is nice to see what a candidates intend to do with the tools. You bring up some good points and I can respect your views and opinions, however, I do not feel quite comfortable supporting if someone isn't quite sure what they want to use the tools for.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I understand some people prefer applicants who are task specific; It makes quantifying what to look for in a prospective admin a good deal easier, for a start. My glib answer would be "to make me and Wikipedia better", but the truth is I haven't got the tools so I cannot say how best I would be able to use them. Using them to the best is obviously the prime purpose in my applying here, but I would prefer to investigate the potential before committing myself to any particular area. Please be assured that I would start using the mop as soon as it is available, but incrementally and over a spectrum of tasks until I find what best suits me and the role.
    BTW, I wasn't specifically responding to your neutral but generally. I could have written the above in the answer to Q1, or in the General comments, but I do recognise my tendency to comment exhaustively. However, I appreciate your comments (echoed below) are obviously valid and I am grateful for your further responses. It is a viewpoint that I will take on board whatever the outcome. LessHeard vanU 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Your experience is very good however I am not convinced by your answer to question 1 that you actually have a need for admin tools and do not intend to use them that often - Good luck to you! The Sunshine Man 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I have no doubt we have a very good editor here - and that is precisely what Wikipedia needs. However, given the answer to Q1, I think the editor should just concentrate on editing given there is no real commitment to any specific use of the tools. Do we really need more admins for the sake of having more admins? Duke of Whitstable 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I would disagree with that. Haven't you ever come across a user who is vandalizing a page and has already been warned? If your an editor, you would have to report them to AIV and wait, however if you have sysop tools you could do it immediately. Even if this user blocks one person a year, that's one less vandal. TTalk to me 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Likewise. Although I do help out with backlogs now and then (IFD today, as it happens) the tools are immensely useful to me as I go about my daily wiki business: the ability to delete and restore pages during a move, the ability to edit protected templates like {{WPBiography}}, or the ability to block persistent vandals who show up on my watchlist (The Beatles, an article LessVan presumably has watchlisted, attracts a terrible amount of vandalism). I'm sure LessVan would benefit from having them for similar reasons, and that would help the encyclopedia; if he has the time and inclination to help out with backlogs once he has the tools, even better. Most newbie admins head to WP:AIV by the way, LessVan. --kingboyk 19:39, 12 May 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.