Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lst27 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lst27

Final (11/5/1) ending 23:04, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

It's been six months since we've done this one. In that time, Lst27 has avoided incident and been the positive contributer to Wikipedia that he's been for around a year now. He has not self-nominated for adminship. He has not nominated others to "curry favor." The only incident of any questionableness is that he, after being badgered for months about how he was a sockpuppet of Alex <removed>, admited to being Alex <removed> when he was, in fact, not a sockpuppet at all and had spent months being falsely accused by people. In other words, can we stop dumping on a good user and give him the damn mop and bucket already? Thanks. Snowspinner 23:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, everyone.

Thank you very much, Snowspinner, I accept the nomination. I don’t want adminship just as a reward; I really want to help Wikipedia, and want other people to comment on me so I can improve in the future. I have been here since January 2004 (or maybe earlier than that), and have had this account for about one year. I have made more than 3700 edits to the English Wikipedia using my account; I will make more edits after getting adminship. (I have accounts in several other Wikipedias as well.) However, I don’t have the habit of using the Preview button, so that number could be inaccurate. Althogh my political views are very Bayhsed, I will try very hard to keep an NPOV in Wikipedia. (In case you didn’t get my joke, Bayhsed=biased, and I support Evan Bayh for the presidency in the U.S. presidential election, 2008.)

I also wanted to point out that if every vandal contributes something useful for Wikipedia, this encyclopedia would be a much better place. I will work very hard to find vandals, and block them if necessary; but we should give them more chances, and encourage them to contribute some information they know about. Sincerely, --Lst27 (talk) 23:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. About damn time. Snowspinner 23:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. All this sockpuppet stuff is baloney. Can you say filibuster? Whether Lst27 is Alex <removed> or not, we're NOT dealing with a troll or a vandal. I also supported ABCD, who is also said to be Alex <removed>. Lst27 hasn't done anything in his main namespace edits to make me dubious of his abilities. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 09:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Good point. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. utcursch | talk 12:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, he has shown himself to be a good user. As for the Alex <removed> thing: if he hadn't admitted to being Alex he would have faced further months of hounding. Rje 14:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  6. I support this nomination. I know there have been allegations that got kicked around like a football, but that's old hat now and I think it's neither fair nor helpful to recycle unproven accusations this far down the track. At any rate, this is an English-language encyclopedia, and "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental principle in every English-speaking country that I know of. This user is a good editor; to be sure, he's had a few run-ins, but I'd be hard-put to name a user who hasn't. Give the guy a break, for goodness sake. David Cannon 23:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Given that the last [[User:Alex<removed>|Alex<removed>]] edit was 29 Jun 2004, I just don't see how the sock puppetry accusations, even if true, are relevant to this RFA. Rad Racer 12:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support, after careful consideration. I give him the benefit of the doubt. If anything goes wrong we can always de-sysop. --JuntungWu 14:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Squash 03:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. The issue of identity has been resolved to my satisfaction. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  11. The who is or isn't who should get resolved first, before RFA . I noted that lot of edits lack summaries. Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    The "lacking edit summaries" thing was several months ago. I do use edit summaries now. --Lst27 (talk) 01:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I changed mind to support. After a while on RC patrol, seeing Lst27 dealing with vandals, I think every hand is needed now. (And if these hands are multiple, the better.) Pavel Vozenilek 02:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. This user first claimed in no uncertain terms not to be Alex <removed> [1], then turned around and claimed that he was Alex <removed> [2]. Thus, he has made false statements about his identity on at least one occasion (it's not clear to me what he claims now, or what the truth of the matter is). Also, actions such as putting up a public listing of users he would not support for adminship [3] suggest a lack of the maturity one would hope for in an admin. Josh Cherry 04:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, Alex <removed> has been trying to get an adminship under I can't remember how many different names now, and whether Lst27 is or is not Alex <removed>, he either lied when denying he was Alex <removed>, or else he lied when he said he was Alex <removed>. Either way doesn't give me warm fuzzies. RickK 05:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. See comments. Will change to support if it turns out to be a misunderstanding. Oppose firmly. Alex's behavior as Perl is highly suspicious: I can't see why it took him four months to ask Lst27 to stop claiming his identity, nor can I see why he removed all instances of the name "Alex <removed>" only from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lst27.09, even though it's linked from [[Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Alex<removed>|numerous other places]], and still visible on User:Perl/contact. That is suspicious, to say the least. Even if Lst27 isn't Alex (and I've been wrong about this once before), it is a bad sign that he maintained the claim on his userpage for six months, and even strongly implied that he was Alex as recently as 22 March. (See comments below for explanation of this diff.) Either way, I have to oppose. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose. I'm uncomfortable with "Lst27" being an Admin while this identity issue is unresolved. I may change my vote if this issue is clarified. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) Changing to support.
  4. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Even if the preponderance of evidence is of a fine and harmless editor, the admin corps is not important enough either that he needs to have that pin on his lapel, or that we can't do without him. I don't care what all the wierdness and all the persistance about adminship means; adminship isn't important enough to justify wading through all that to a situation of confidence. --Jerzy (t) 03:05, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Ultimately, the question is one of trust. Developing trust for someone who has lied in the past is challenging, but conceivable. Developing trust for someone who is in the act of lying at the present time is not rationally possible. In this case, I believe the truth to be in the "Freudian slip" pointed out by Mirv, and not the present denials, and therefore I oppose. --Michael Snow 23:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Reconsidering the evidence, temporarily moving vote to neutral. --Michael Snow 03:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Update: Based on the technical evidence and further discussions, I am reasonably satisfied that Lst27 is not Alex <removed>. It appears that Lst27 "admitted" to being Alex <removed> based on bad advice. Because the question was not resolved until now, I'm not willing to immediately support adminship. However, trying to be understanding of the circumstances, I will not oppose either, so I shall remain neutral. --Michael Snow 23:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Most recent previous RFA, September 16, 2004 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lst27
  • Prior RFA June 21, 2004 Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lst27.09
  • Another RFA May 16, 2004
  • 3735 edits; 1891 to the main namespace. —Korath (Talk) 23:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this: "he . . . admited to being Alex <removed> when he was, in fact, not a sockpuppet at all and had spent months being falsely accused by people." If he admitted to being Alex <removed>, and said "I am Alex <removed>" on his userpage for months, but was in fact not Alex <removed>, then that's cause for alarm.
    If he is Alex <removed>, on the other hand, then he's done exactly what he should have done, and I'll support as soon as this is cleared up. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • From 25 Sep 2004 [4] until 8 Jan 2005 [5], Lst27 claimed on his user page that he was [[User:Alex<removed>|Alex<removed>]]. Carbonite | Talk 04:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the admission to being Alex <removed> came after a number of comments in the form of "But he hasn't. He needs to come clean about his previous identities, apologize for the lies, and then wait a substantial time before he can be considered (otherwise he would just make a fake apology to get adminship)." (That from Gzornenplatz). Although he shouldn't have claimed to be somebody he's not, he was under large amounts of pressure, both on the Wikipedia and off to "come clean." I know I encouraged him to admit to being Alex <removed>. It is not unexpected, certainly, that when multiple people are yelling at you to admit to something, you will admit to it. The lesson here is as much to the community to perhaps be less accusatory about possible sockpuppets as it is to Lst27 about honesty. Snowspinner 13:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    He should not have claimed—as recently as 22 March—to be someone he's not. Nor should he have kept up the lie for six months, rather than giving some kind of evidence to exonerate himself. Alex's persistent dishonesty was my main reason for opposing his past attempts at adminship; if what you say is true, than Lst27's behavior has been just as bad. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    That diff shows Lst27 denying that he's ABCD, and as far as I can tell it was a true statement. The evidence seems to show that ABCD is not Alex <removed>, and that Lst27 is Alex <removed>. Lst27 never admitted to being ABCD, and I believe the only connection between them is that they were both suspected of being Alex. --Michael Snow 18:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    The diff shows Lst27 saying, truthfully, that ABCD is not his sockpuppet (note the exact wording: "ABCD is not a sockpuppet of me"). At the time, ABCD was accused of being Alex <removed>'s sockpuppet. You may draw your own conclusions. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for elucidating the significance. It's also worth noting that at the time, while a number of Alex <removed>'s previous sockpuppet accounts had been mentioned in the discussion, Lst27 was not among them. --Michael Snow 23:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I've yet to make my mind up on the identity of Lst27, but in the interest of fairness I should point out that the link between ABCD and Lst27 was made by Netoholic in the first Request for adminship, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD.09.
    Above comment made by me last night. Rje 11:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding Rje's vote: If he had done as ABCD managed to do, and provided satisfactory evidence of not being Alex <removed>, then no, he would not have "faced further months of hounding." --Michael Snow 18:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Why should he have to? If Lst27 wants to remain anonymous then that is his choice. After being practically forced to come out as Alex<removed> by the community, whether he was or not, I think it is something of a cop out for members of the community to use the fact that he may have lied about his identity as an excuse for opposing. I'm unsure whether Lst27 is Alex or not, but judging from this user's recent edits I think he has developed into a good editor who has shown himself to be trustworthy. Rje 22:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Lst27 logged out. This is an RPI IP address. RPI, by the way, is in Troy, New York. --128.113.30.99 01:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Just to prove that this IP address was really me. --Lst27 (talk) 01:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Lst27 logged out. This IP address belongs to my school in Guilderland Center, NY. --163.153.108.13 20:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I approve the message above. --Lst27 (talk) 20:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
I check RecentChanges frequently, and I will continue to do so as an administrator. I will work very hard to fight vandals, and block them if necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I have made a lot of contributions to MathCounts, and I am pleased because it is very informative, and since I have been on the MathCounts team before, I know a lot about it. I have also contributed to many political articles.
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 will deal with it in the future?
I don't think I have had any major conflicts in the past, except the Alex <removed> thing. In the future, if I have any conflicts, I will just solve it peacefully. I promise that I won't engage in edit wars, and instead, I will just discuss the problem on the talk page.
  • I would like to invite Lst27 to comment on this edit, his user page comment here, and this more recent note. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The WikiMoney edit: I didn't really know how the WikiMoney system works back then, so I was making some stupid edit. I apologise for that. My userpage during my 2 weeks of vacation in August: I just wanted adminship very badly then, and I'm not that kind of person anymore. Never supporting someone for adminship: I was just very annoyed that he believed that A<removed>, ABCD, and me were all the same person. I was pissed off, and making that edit makes me feel better. --Lst27 (talk) 23:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you edit using any other user names? Specifically, are you [[User:Alex<removed>|Alex<removed>]] or ABCD? If you are not Alex <removed>, please explain why you made such a claim on your user page for several months. Carbonite | Talk 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I am not Alex <removed>. As Snowspinner pointed out, I was pressured to admit that I am, and I thought it was a good idea. I admitted, and it turned out to be a bad choice. I had to remove my lie from my userpage because of this comment made by Perl. --Lst27 (talk) 20:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Would you be willing to provide some evidence (privately to a developer if necessary) to support the claim that you are not Alex <removed>? --Michael Snow 20:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah. I have already contacted Tim Starling, and hopefully he can provide some evidence. Also note that my IP address is from Troy, New York. --Lst27 (talk) 02:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just have a developer tell us if he is or isn't alex<removed> / abcd? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if Lst27 is or is not Alex <removed>, but I am not he, and he is not I, as may be seen at my nullified RFA. – ABCD 00:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, Perl is Alex, you are Perl but not Alex? ... Please direct me to a major content contribution of yours, say, in last month. muriel@pt 10:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the contention is that Lst27 is not Perl and not Alex (Perl is definitely Alex, I don't think anybody doubts that). And ABCD is somebody else entirely. --Michael Snow 20:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)