Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Limetolime 2

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.

Contents

[edit] Limetolime

Final (0/6/0); Ended 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC) - WP:SNOW close by -- Anonymous DissidentTalk

Limetolime (talk · contribs) - Limetolime has been on Wikipedia since November 2006 and has made over 4,000 edits ever since. Limetolime has made major contributions to 67 articles, which are listed here:

Articles with major edits by Limetolime

Limetolime has been the major contributor to Superman (film series), which is now a featured article. He has also been the major contributor to Jurassic Park franchise and The Muppets' Wizard of Oz, both of which have reached good article status. Limetolime wishes to contribute to WP:AFD AND WP:BP if he becomes and Administrator. Limetolime is a civil and well-experienced user who can be trusted with Administrator tools for the good of managing Wikipedia. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:

As stated above, I wish to take part in WP:BP and WP:AFD and make substantial conributions to both of these areas. Having faced both of these areas before, I intend to make sure that other users use Wikipedia for the benefit of others, and not to vandalize it.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:

I am most proud of the article Superman (film series) as I was the major contributor who helped bring it to featured article status. The article first started out as a terrible list of the films in the series, barely making the cut for a stub. It was a tough job to tackle, but I have finished it and I intend to submit for inclusion on the main page when the time is right. I am also very proud of Jurassic Park (franchise) and The Muppets' Wizard of Oz, as I was a major contributor to Jurassic Park (franchise) and the sole contributor to The Muppets' Wizard of Oz, and helped bring both to GA staus, with The Muppets' Wizard of Oz currently undergoing an A-class review, which you can read here.

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 had my fair share of arguments since I first started Wikipedia, and I have dealt with them all through discussion. I intend to do the same in the future, whether it be for deleting an article or blocking a user. I have listed my conflicts here:

A few questions from Dusti

4. What is the difference between a block and a ban, and when should they be used?
A.
5. What, in your opinions, were the issues with your last RFA, and how have you correct them?
A.
6. In your last RFA it says you were blocked for "lashing out" at a user. Can you explain this? What else were you blocked for? What have you learned from this?
A.
7. Why did you request someone who is fairly new to Wikipedia and has 138 edits to nominate you for adminship?
A.

Question from Tim Vickers

5. What are fair-use images used for in Wikipedia?
A.

Optional Questions from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

6. All of the following accounts were blocked as socks or puppet masters: AndalusianNaugahyde, AshbyJnr, Blueanode, Brandon97, Burntsauce, Casperonline, Dannycali, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Eyrian, Gazpacho, Golfcam, IPSOS, Jack Merridew, JohnEMcClure, LAZY 1L, Moby Dick, Mrs random, Note to Cool Cat, 75.5.225.151, SolidPlaid, Varlak, and Yeshivish. As the block logs indicate, these accounts used sockpuppetry and harassment of editors in order to get over two hundred popular culture related articles deleted from Wikipedia, including those indicated in this list that one of the banned accounts wrote. Even if you personally want those articles deleted, do the ends justify the means? What if anything could or should be done to reverse what they did and to send a message that sockpuppetry and harassment will not succeed on Wikipedia? The above indicated accounts were used in hundreds of AfDs and in many cases in was not determined that they were socks of each other until after the AfDs had closed. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Konami code references in popular culture. It closed as delete with 7 for delete, 4 for merge, and 3 for keep; however, at least 2 of the deletes were determined to be sock accounts. So, my question is in part what now? Just leave the AfDs as closed deletes, which means that their tactics "won," or should we revisit any AfDs in which a number of the sock puppets participated and likely influenced opinion?

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Limetolime Requests for adminship/Limetolime 2

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Limetolime before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose -- I generally like L's work but am of the opinion that L. doesnt partake in enough admin-related activities (WP:AIV and WP:HD) are, in my opionion, needed for experience as an admin. Without such work I dont even see how one could even think of nominating ones self. Sorry! --Cameron (t/c) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- Per this edit, for one. You "adopt" a new user as of late March, then a few days later ask her to nominate you for adminship? This indicates a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works (or maybe should work). Gwynand (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Sorry bud, but I just cant support you on this. You have fixed one issue from your Rfa, even though you have yet to answer my question about that above. However, there are more issues here than what happened in your last RFA. You have adopted a user, which is great, and have coached them some about policies and letting them learn from your mistakes. I admire you for that. Now, the largest issue with this RFA is that you requested a new user to nominate you, the same user who you just adopted. I just don't understand this. I'm not saying that your a bad person or user, because you have a lot of great edits, but your not ready for this. I suggest that you withdraw this nom, go through admin coaching, and let someone nominate you on their own. I think that with more time, you'll make a great syop and do good here. Don't let this RFA discourage you, but your too eager. Good luck and keep that head up!! You have a lot of energy and determination and that is what will make you go far in the future. Dustitalk to me 16:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    I wanted to add this real quick. You made the comment "I just want to see the new consensus". This isn't the place to see that. If you want to see how you are is other editors eyes, go to Editor Review. Dustitalk to me 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Sorry, not enough project space experience for my tastes - come back in a few months and make some contributions to WP:AIV, WP:HD, WP:RD and WP:AN and other noticeboards. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - not enough admin experience. Per Wisdom. Tiptoety talk 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose the request the editor made to Sofia Vladislava asking her to nominate him shows that he does not understand Wikipedia policies. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
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.