Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ligulem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn.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

[edit] Ligulem

Final (73/7/1) 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ligulem (talk · contribs) – Despite having written otherwise, I hereby apply for the job as an admin. I started editing on Wikipedia in March 2005 and got seriously infected by the wiki-virus around October 2005. I would like to get the license to help protect and further develop things like {{cite book}} (used on more than 5,000 pages today) and the much debated {{qif}} (invented by User:AzaToth), which I hope we will get into MediaWiki software as a built-in function rather sooner than later. I'm one of the proponents of that qif on the much debated WP:AUM and I know qif inside out. I'm an admin and developer on the sourceforge project of WP:AWB. I also use the bot account User:Ligulembot, mostly doing series edits with AWB. Thank you for considering my application. Ligulem 13:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Me on Interiot's tool and my bot account.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do so. --Ligulem 14:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw my RfA. Seeing that much concerns is not ok. I do not want to get admin rights against the will of the opponents. I didn't expect that this would be so controversial. I don't want to be an admin based on this. I do not think that I'm more important on this wiki than anybody else. Apologies for having wasted your time. --Ligulem 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support - Good editor, should have the appropriate tools to continue developing useful templates. Afonso Silva 15:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Good candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Way more patient under stress than minimum requirements, good contributions. Not sure admin is needed FOR developing templates per se, but it's 'no big deal', and no reason to oppose. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support—Wikipeditor 16:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Good and experienced editor. deeptrivia (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Please see question. Computerjoe's talk 16:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Excellent editor, well-versed, ready for the mop. Xoloz 17:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support good editor --rogerd 18:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. You shall go to the ball. David | Talk 18:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support reasons for nomination are solid and professional. --Jay(Reply) 18:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - Good contributor who keeps cool in trying circumstances. --CBDunkerson 18:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - Excellent editor. Well rounded and active. -Localzuk (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, good admin material! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Although I disagree with him. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support nice all around, active, and serious when necessary. Deckiller 21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Yup - I've seen good etcetera. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, no reason not to. Stifle 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. NSLE (T+C) at 00:45 UTC (2006-03-13)
  20. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support -- Please let's do have more technically competent admins. John Reid 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support good user.--Alhutch 03:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. support Great dedication to building the Wiki; evidently talented, too. Ombudsman 04:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support is very dedicated to improving wikipedia in many ways —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-13 04:52Z
  26. Support. sure. pschemp | talk 05:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Very nice contributions. — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 06:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Dealt with him. Worth having a guy like him as admin. --hydkat 06:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support as above --kingboyk 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support --Terence Ong 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support GizzaChat © 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Yeah, sure, looks good to me.--MONGO 08:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support --Khoikhoi 08:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support agree with John Reid on needing more technically competent admins--Looper5920 09:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support, of course. Kusma (討論) 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support: helpful and easy to work with. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Martin 10:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support per John Reid Cynical 11:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, looks like a good candidate. ProhibitOnions 12:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. KHM03 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support: --Bhadani 13:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support looks good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support — Has usually a friendly approach, and that's good for an admin. →AzaToth 17:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Experienced, technically competent. --Muchness 17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. --Marknew 18:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Definitely. JaredW! 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. STRONG SUPPORT 48 votes of support in one day? It looks like this will defintely make WP:100. Anyways, Adrian is a really nice Wikipedian. I've gotten to know him through WP:AWB and he works tirelessly at everything he does, not to mention that fact that he also excels at everything, too. Adrian would make an excellent sysop, and I know that he will use the mop, and everything else, wisely. --M@thwiz2020 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. support. Bucky Covington 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support as per nominator, should make a fantastic admin. Hall Monitor 23:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support because he seems like a nice bloke, and to counter the random pointless oppose vote. Thumbelina 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per above and someone has to guard templates! --CTSWyneken 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support; contribution history looks good; should be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Another solid admin-in-waiting Deizio 02:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Yes. –Joke 03:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Looks great. --BWD (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Please give this user the tools to do all the technical things the rest of us don't understand. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support—Quarl (talk) 2006-03-14 11:01Z
  63. Support, of course. haz (user talk)e 13:42, 14 March 2006
  64. Support per the off stated remark - I've seen his good work --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support, looks good. JIP | Talk 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support, good job Prodego talk 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support will be a good admin.Gator (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support, bloody nice bloke in my dealings with him. Hiding talk 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Feeding trolls, especially in ones RfA, is a bad idea, but this is a good editor, so I support. Jonathunder 21:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support per all above, impressive and very non-trivial contributions. And certainly to support a fellow Swiss :-) Sandstein 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support Excellent contributor, defends consensus, great technical contributions. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support I don't fully understand the random attempts to derail this RFA. Staxringold 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Adrian, I urge you to withdraw your withdrawal. We need more admins like you. But you mustn't let a little opposition get you down. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and perhaps you shouldn't treat it as all or nothing. In spite of the opposition, you have overwhelming support. --Go for it! 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Rob Church 01:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Would you please explain why you voted in opposition? Is it just so that you would stand out as the sole voice against? Usually, it is custom to leave a description of one's rationale when one votes against the vast majority. Could you please do so? Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please assume good faith. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    If there is a valid reason to oppose this candidate, I would sure like to know about it. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    See User:Robchurch/Admin. ~MDD4696 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    That doesn't shed light on anything. --BWD (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Mathwiz said Is it just so that you would stand out as the sole voice against? This is unacceptable as it assumes Rob's bad faith. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, well, well, what have we here? Let's see. First of all, I don't think I'm required to go into intricate details reasoning the voting patterns I exhibit. I'm consistent enough that I oppose those users I don't think should be made administrators on the English-language Wikipedia. Some, but not all of the reasons, might be found on the adminship criteria page I keep, but be aware that I don't keep that too updated, and a lot of the motivation for a particular opinion comes from elsewhere, so please stop linking to it. You don't know the reasons I opposed or supported are there. Please assume a little more good faith and stop pestering people who oppose. While I'm at it, and in full swing, let's state that RfA is not a competition; your support vote itself doesn't look like it's motivated by anything other than a desire to get this user's candidate page listed on some stupid little records page. All in all, I think the attitude of some users towards those who take the time to consider their positions and philosophies, and translate these into opposition or support, is rather pathetic. And there's the short and tall of it. As for the original question? Adrian has potential but I don't think I've seen enough of it. Simple. Rob Church 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I didn't intend to mix myself into the voting discussions, as I do not like if candidates start arguing with the voters. But it seems like some things just happen. I think non-explained opposing votes are ok. I have done so too for example on the arbcom elections. I read a lot that wikipedia is not a democracy. But voices do count. It's absolutely fair and correct if a wikipedian stands here with his name and opposes. In fact those that do not say why they oppose are in fact doing the candidate a favor as their vote does not contain any form of propaganda. It's their pure own voice. We have a very bold tradition on this kind of democracy here in Switzerland and I grew up in that culture. I do value this system. Sometimes saying nothing is good. Please be a bit clemently with Mathwiz. He is sometimes a bit overly enthusiastic. But he's a nice guy and a very intelligent person and a very good English writer (in contrast to me). I must say I'm a bit embarassed by all these support votes and I would rather prefer not to be the subject of a beauty contest. It was never ever my goal to win something here. I've only asked to get an admin license. Thanks to all. --Ligulem 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Now that I understand your reasoning, your vote is completely acceptable. I am sorry for assuming bad faith, but I truly believe that Adrian is qualified. I did not vote in support just to list him on WP:100 - in fact, I made this comment only because I had, just a minute before, read this message left on my talk page by Naconkantari. I just thought that I would be bold and ask you for your rationale, so that others could see your reasoning and possibly agree/disagree with them and vote accordingly. While you still haven't clearly stated your reasoning, vote number three (below) gives me some idea of what it might be. (Then again, there has been somewhat of a debate between Netoholic and Adrian recently about meta templates, and he might have voted that away just to spite Adrian, but his claim is valid nonetheless.) As I said before, I'm sorry and I didn't mean to spark such a debate here. --M@thwiz2020 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Dude, there isn't really a politer way to put this. Stop making assumptions, it's bloody rude. You don't know the entire thought process so don't just attribute it to someone else's vote. I might disagree with them entirely. Thank you. Rob Church 01:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It is not a must for me to give any reason for opposing,although it is general practice.Prasi90 16:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    It might be an novel idea. You have less than 20 mainspace edits along with an astounding 33 to your userpage. Providing concenus could help your vote provide actual insight in regards to this nomination. -ZeroTalk 16:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed [1].--Ligulem 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I also looked in your block log [2]. This is far below the behavior and edits we construct at the this encyclopediac site. I wonder if it be plusible to desist opposing full-fleged wikipedians and taking an quiet instropection in regards to your own disruptive actions. -ZeroTalk 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - misses out on some key aspects of the Wiki. Latest revert war over the categorization of WP:AUM is a good example. -- Netoholic @ 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    At least I know your key aspects quite well [3]. --Ligulem 17:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Logical fallacy, such as poisoning the well, is perhaps another reason that people should oppose you - you could have taken the high road. My block log has nothing to say about my character. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison - would you similarly insult his character just on the basis of his judicial problems? -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Nelson Mandela had a little bit more supporters than you. And far better arguments too [4] — ok, this was my last troll feeding biscuit here. --Ligulem 19:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, but his supporters were likewise often unwilling to voice their support for fear of sharing his fate. But anyway, my point was that commenting negatively about my block log does not automatically make you look good in everyone's eyes. Neither does flatly calling me a dick.-- Netoholic @ 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for "feeding trolls biscuits" above. Uncalled for behavior; technical proficiency =/= emotional temperment for the job. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Of all places to get into petty arguments. ~MDD4696 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose out of concern for his temper. Otherwise he's a good editor and I would support sans reservation. Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. dislike self noms. Would possibly have voted support, and ask user not to delete comments, except Netoholic pointed out this diff, to which I have a corresponding diff. I'd happily vote support if the user waited a while and let somebody else nominate. Also, very thankful for help and edits in template: space, but this does not generally require the sysop bit. ... aa:talk 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral not leaning towards support or oppose. Not sure if he has a good working knowledge of Wikipedia policies or not. Moe ε 15:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    After a quick browse through Adrian's contribution tree on Interiot's tool, I have found examples of his wiki-knowledge. For example, Talk:List of UML tools shows Adrian's ability to communicate well and come to agreements on both sides. He also indirectly shows knowledge of WP:NOT through statements such as, "it is unclear... whether Wikipedia is the right place for such a comparison." Interiot's tree also shows Adrian's tireless efforts on WP:TFD, an effort which I greatly applaud since most admins don't even help out there! Overall, I think that, even if there are policies that Adrian does not yet know at this time, he will be able to absorb and fully understand them in no time. The 49 votes in support (so far) stand as just one of the many proofs that Adrian is a well-qualified candidate for adminship. --M@thwiz2020 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Since Mathwiz2020 requested I comment here, I will. Before this nomination was made, I had never even heard of this user. Although that's no reason for opposing, which I didn't, I stated I was unsure of his contributions. Now since you provided examples, I'm sure he's able to make valid admin descisions on his own. But I am not changing my vote. Moe ε 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Ligulem's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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.
I'm particularly interested in being able to protect and watch high use templates like {{qif}} and {{cite book}} with admin rights. Most of my contribs are in the area of templates, which I see as an important tool to further develop the quality of this Encyclopedia. I believe I have quite a good understanding of how templates work. I would also like to be able helping with admin power on any issues around WP:AWB. I have no intention for doing much vandal patrolling. I also do have no experience in mediation. I hate endless discussions, but I do like talking before acting.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I'm rather weak in the article namespace, due to the fact that I'm not a native English speaker (see my user page). I'm somewhat satisfied that I could help keep alive {{cite book}}, although I'm not absolutely sure if this is the right way to do book references for all times. Hopefully we will see more things like Ævar's citation tags in the future.
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?
When I first received a WP:Dick award from a top-shot Wikipedian due to my support I showed on WP:AUM for {{qif}}, I was a bit shocked and considered leaving the project. But I could not resist editing. I have been and I am in strong opposition with user:Netoholic and user:Snowspinner about the technical implications of the so called metatemplates. This issue is not yet resolved. I learned to live with this kind of opposition and I am able to discern personal dislike and neutral consideration of ideas. However, I do not take anything personal here as this is just a wiki. After all we all have a real live we should take care of. As such I do not think that I am indispensable here and I do not intend to wear a big stick.
4. You had a big drop in edits in February. What's the reason for this? Computerjoe's talk 16:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That's correct. I have done a lot with the WP:AWB tool recently. I also helped User:Bluemoose putting up the AWB project on sourceforge. These were all semiautomatic edits, as I had to check each diff before clicking on save. You can see the settings files for AWB I used here. I use my bot account (contribs) for these edits in order not to clutter up the contribs list of my normal account. So my normal account looks somewhat dead when I do lot of work with AWB. --Ligulem 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
5. In a paragraph, what do you consider to be the purpose of Wikipedia? Be honest ... I'm not looking for a regurgitation of WP:ENC. --Cyde Weys 00:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Um. That's quite a difficult question. I fear I don't know it. I came here after having used Wikipedia due to its excellent content. I was astonished how something like this can happen. And I was and am attracted by the beauty that lies in such a great work. I was and am also attracted by the tremendous brain power of all the incredibly intelligent contributors. As possibly everyone that came here, I did a few edits to some articles as a first act on being bold (that whisper, you know "you can edit. Be bold!"). It's just a miracle and I'm happy for being part of that. I would like to help strengthen that miracle and help it keep flying. But I'm not obsessed with it. But I feel sad if that treasure gets hurt. I believe it belongs to all of us and whoever wants to be part of it. --Ligulem 08:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above 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.