Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/larsinio

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.

[edit] Larsinio

Final (30/22/5) ending 19:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Larsinio (talk · contribs) – I have been a member since July 5th, 2005 with an average of 14.74 edits per day. I spend most of time in the Computer and video games project, helping out with admins Thunderbrand and Jacoplane. In CVG, i have been helping out choosing essential articles, creating useful stubs, re-categorizing items, and being a driving force on our weekly collaborations. I like creating useful templates, particularly series and infobox templates.

Me on Interiot's tool and

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination, after consideration of advice Thunderbrand had given me.

Support

  1. Support, this is a great contributor. jacoplane 19:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Has shown great contribs. to the CVG proj. and passes my standards. Thunderbrand 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Axiomm 03:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. He looks good to Me. Even though He might not win on this nomination, I feel He deserves the promotion. -- Eddie, Monday March 13, 2006 at 09:44
    This is NOT A GAME. People don't "win". NSLE (T+C) at 09:50 UTC (2006-03-13)
    That seems a little harsh to me. The use of "win" obviously simply referred to success. While I appreciate it's not the best verb to pick, I hardly see the need to rant at another user for it. Chill out. Rob Church 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, Rob. I think that was too harsh, too. -- Eddie, Wednesday March 15, 2006 at 05:13
  6. Support, good contributor, could do more in other areas, but levelheaded. ProhibitOnions 11:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, knows what he's doing, has done a lot of Admin-associable things. JaredW! 20:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. Vic Vipr 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support I am convinced this editor will use admin powers responsibly to deal with vandalism. I don't see him bullying anyone.--CTSWyneken 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per nom. --BWD (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. I support you too. Bucky Covington 12:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    User has been indefinitely blocked on username grounds. NSLE (T+C) at 00:44 UTC (2006-03-15)
    What's that supposed to mean? the username doesn't look offensive at all Mostly Rainy 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Nope, but it impersonates someone else - Bucky Covington is an American Idol 5 finalist. NSLE (T+C) at 01:55 UTC (2006-03-15)
  13. Support review of edits convinces me he won't abuse tools, so he gets my support.Gator (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support I can't see owt that really troubles me and adminship is no big deal. Looks a good editor. Hiding talk 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Moral Support - It looks like your opposition simply wants you to acquire more experience. Well, I've got a suggestion. You could show off your acumen of Wikipedia (and improve it) by proofreading and writing tips for the Tip of the day project. We launch on April 20th, and are scrambling to create a great collection of tips covering every aspect of Wikipedia's operation, and could sure use your help. --Go for it! 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support I don't understand the strong opposition based on experience here. Looks like a good candidate to me. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nom. Mostly Rainy 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Why not?--Jusjih 03:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Good Overall editor and wikipedian contributor. Tutmosis 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 06:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, this user has made excellent contributions across several namespaces. I strongly doubt this user would abuse the mop. --ZsinjTalk 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support-- no big deal right, ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - Hahnchen 05:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support- I was a little weak on this first but I decided the user would make a good admin. after all. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support --Latinus 00:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, A good contributor. Shyam (T/C) 15:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Good editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support We're supposed to vote on whether an editor will use Admin powers responsibly. I believe he will. --CTSWyneken 16:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Helpful contributions, good editor. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Needs more experience with the Wikipedia namespace. Most of his contributions in this space have been related to the Wikiproject he mentions. Spend some more time looking at the administration side of things and the policy side of things and I will support you. Try again in a couple of months. -Localzuk (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose - Worried that he'll edit Wikipedia while drunk. --Assimoff 03:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose sloppy, and his answer to question 3 is incorrect. KI 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    To be fair to larsinio, there is no right or wrong answers to the questions below, they are opinions questions. Moe ε 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    What KI may have meant was that the information was wrong rather than the answer. GizzaChat © 08:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Localzuk. Moe ε 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose prefer admins to have broad experience across all facets of the project.--Looper5920 23:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Lack of experience, apparent lack of policy knowledge (under 100 contributions to Wikipedia namespace, which I would consider short even if they had been to various different areas, which they haven't). You don't need to be an admin to welcome folks, so I'd encourage you to do that and try again in a month or two. Stifle 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above statements. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strongly oppose per above, and see new questions below. NSLE (T+C) at 01:11 UTC (2006-03-13)
  9. Weak Oppose. It isn't anything personal, but you're a bit too specialized; maybe move around a bit, and do some stuff on the rest of Wikipedia. But it's a good start! --M o P 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I really appreciate specialized content contributors, but you do need more wikispace experience to deal properly with difficulties that arise as an admin. Xoloz 05:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose, would lean towards support if you come back with a bit more project space interraction under your belt. --kingboyk 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak Oppose, your profilic contributions to CVG stuff is good. However, as an admin you need more Wikipedia space contributions. --Terence Ong 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose all of the tasks he anticipates doing (in the answers to questions below) can be accomplished without admin tools Cynical 11:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Just don't get the "solid all-rounder" vibe on this one yet. As others have said, broaden your range of contribs and knowledge of policy. Deizio 13:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak weak oppose. I've encountered Larsinio from time to time on CVG wikiproject, and I agree that his contributions there have been outstanding. Seeing Jacoplane's comment below, I went back and did a lot of digging in Larsinio's contribution history. Larsinio is a great contributor, but I think he is a little short in a few areas that I really would like to see more activity in... User:talk, vandal fighting, WP areas like XfD, and edit summaries. It wouldn't take very much time away from his primary joy of CVG articles to expand into these other areas a little, and push him over the top into an unqualified support vote from me in a month or two. --Syrthiss 18:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per this. AucamanTalk 11:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. OpposePrasi90 16:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Prasi90's block log and current RfC haz (user talk)e 20:38, 14 March 2006
    his history should not diminish his voting, we must assume good faith. Mike (T C) 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, the closing b'crat has the discretion to disqualify votes. While questioning many votes would be bad form, a rare comment on an exceptional case is in order. Xoloz 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per NSLE Mike (T C) 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. I'd like to see more project space participation also, and I am not sure [User:Larsinio|Larsinio]] completely understands Wikipedia policies. Prodego talk 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak Oppose lack of wikispace edits --Ugur Basak 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per above. Weatherman90 13:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose generally thin in non-main body edits, experience wise. Staxringold 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Nay not on long enough... —This unsigned comment was added by Ncrown23334 (talk • contribs) .

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I'd like to see more project space participation. pschemp | talk 05:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Per Pshchemp. GizzaChat © 08:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral as for now. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. NeutralI encourage you to contribute more – you are really a nice editor. --Bhadani 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Good contributor, but needs more project and user talk edits.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • As a follow-up comment, I would like to say that I have observed this user closely over the last few months. Although it is correct that he has been focused on a limited aspect of the project, as those opposing have pointed out, I feel it is my duty to point out that the work he has done within this admittedly limited scope has been excellent. I have seen few contributors that have been as devoted. Accusations of sloppyness fall on deaf ears in my case. If adminship is indeed no big deal, then I would hope that uninformed opposers would have better arguments than these superficial conclusions that they are apparently reaching simply by looking at the nominee's entry on Interiot's tool. I think I can personally vouch for the integrity and worthiness of this user. Larsinio should answer the additional questions posed by NSLE. However, I find it rather odd that NSLE would oppose and at the same time ask the nominee to answer additional questions. The least you could to is await his answers, or abstain from asking them in the first place. jacoplane 02:19, 13 March 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.
I'm interested in dealing with Requests for Protection and AFD. I would also like to help welcoming users, particularly by aseembling a ready-to use toolbox page that would be somewaht similar to my own, but with added information. That initial welcoming was really, well, welcome when I had joined, it seemed like somobody actually cared, and it is this care and good faith is what the wikipedia community is all about.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I have done a number of complete video game serie, particularly Konami titles such as Gradius, Metal Slug, and Contra. But the article I'm most particularly proud of is Beer Pong, an article I saw was in such bad shape that I just re-wrote the whole thing from essentially scratch; I even created some diagrams to help out. This re-write got more people excited about the article, particularly Rethcir, who I have been coordinating tgasks in order to have this article become featured eventually. I am pleased with almost all of my contributions essentially, because once I created two or three, I really got the hang of it and it became enjoyable.
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?
Vandalism gives me a lot of stress on article I monitor, particularly newbie. But this is mostly from anonymous users. In the beginning of my wiki journey, I had conflict over Umbrella Corporation over the use of of a lengthy amount of history that was there. It was unsourced, but I was new and naive at the time thinking that even a large amount of unsourced information was better than none. Today I realize that keeping the wikipedia free of possible copy-vio'd content is essential to its mission and its future. About a month ago I got in a little bit of a quibble with User:EllG73 who had deleted some comments on his user page, including oneI had just left him. I looked this i up in the policy and saw that it was vandalism. I reverted that, and had left him additional comments saying that It was considered vandalism and told him where to look it up. He then started saying that I was harassing him. I got third party interevention and the advice that was given was somethign that I will takewith me from now on; that users any users, whether breaking policy or not, should be dealt with calmly and if its clear a message is not getting through, just have someone else help out. Being a lone gunman to resolve a matter will many a tims not work because users may only choose to ignore one person, but they wont ignore several people regarding policy infractions.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

Such an issue like this would need full visibility. Considering everything is resolved by consensus, I would want to build a consensus by posting this to the Administrators noticeboard. I would want ot make sure that this wasnt some random rumor or some user trying to flame an admin arbitrarily.

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

I would try to salvage the article personally to resolve the nonsense issues. If the article was still seen as nonworkable even after that or I could not help it, I would not oppose the consensus.

3.You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

After applying the appropriate test warnings along the way, I would have request that another admin block him temporarily based, citing the evidence Ive seen and my history with the user.

4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

I would feel the other admin out, see what he thinks about the issue when I discuss my view, and then respect the decision that came out of that. I would try to maintain contact with teh two parties throughout, ensuring that they do not become wiki-burned out and keeping their hopes and energyt up. Many users with high edit counts, wind up feeling disenfrhanchised from the community when one of these events occur, and it is important that you keep editors who obviously put so much care into their subject material, even if it is not to a productive end. If ArbCom rejects the case I would invite them back. Any communications i have with the parties I would note down and communicate to the admins involved.


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.