Testwiki:Requests for adminship/Lradrama

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Lradrama

Ended (18/15/7); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Lradrama 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I am Lradrama and I have been editing Wikipedia consistently since January 2007, which is about 7 months. In that time, I have amassed a total of over 4,500 edits on the English Wikipedia. Tasks that I regularly do on Wikipedia include patrolling the recent changes and reverting vandalism, warning the vandals and reporting the serious vandals on the AIV page. I also work on articles of my interest. I have worked a lot on the Toyota F1 article, and have significantly improved it since January. Other articles I've made significant contributions to are Lancashire United, Acting, Blackburn Transport, Drama school, Jarno Trulli, Lee Ingleby, List of serial killers by number of victims, Ralf Schumacher and The Real Inspector Hound. As you can see, that is a wide topic range. I have also started my own articles on Blackburn Drama Club, John Howett, King Travel and Lee Worswick.

On RC Patrol, I come across new users, and I welcome them with the welcome template if I see they've made some good edits. Some of these have turned to me for help and assistance, which I have willingly given. If I come across untidy article talkpages, I also try and sort them out, either my sectioning them properly, or adding the talkheaders which contain vital instructions for new users. When I come across any article which is considered vandalism I use the speedy deletion templates.

Having been a Wikipedian for over half a year now, and with lots of good and different edits under my belt, I would therefore like to progress to become an administrator, and hence this request.

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 would like to continue patrolling the recent changes, working on the Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism page and with the Speedy Deletion section. I would also like to continue working on improving articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think, other than reverting masses of vandalism, my contributions to the aricles that are Toyota F1 and Lancashire United stand out. With the former, I have been working on it to try and get it to GA and then FA status. I have also recieved a barnstar for my efforts with it. I have added a whole range of new information, grammatical corrections, new and more appropriate in-depth sections and lots more references. I am very proud of my ongoing work. The biggest transformation overall transformation visually would be the Lancashire United article. Before I started work on it, it was a small stub of an article. Due to my work, it is now at least 5 times the size, packed full of useful information, with an infobox and a references section.
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 hate editing wars. The only ones I've sort of been involved in would be ones where I kept having to revert the vandalism repeatedly put on by a vandal. I repeatedly warned the vandal (using warning templates 1, 2, 3 then 4) and then got him/her blocked via AIV. That's how it was resolved. I can also remember an incident when a vandal caused me stress. He had created an account to vandalise Wikipedia. I reverted an edit of his, and warned him on his talkpage. He sent me a message back saying he didn't vandalise the page and requesting I proved that he did. That I did. Then he got angry, and it resulted in a most ridiculous conversation which progressed to him vandalising my userpage - twice. I went along to an administrator I knew well and trusted - Wimt - and asked for some assistance trying to make the vandal change his ways. The vandal was then blocked after he refused to co-operate. He then created a new account, solely to vandalise my page, and that was also blocked, and that's how the conflict ended. I tried to change him into a good editor, offering him advice and the temptation of a Wiki-love smile template, but he wouldn't co-operate. But I tried my best.
4. Optional Question from Trusilver: In your own words, how do you feel that good faith applies to anti-vandalism work? Is good faith something that should always be assumed always, or can it hinder your ability to revert vandalism effectively?
A: Yes, I do believe that good faith applies to anti-vandalism work. Most vandals are newcomers to Wikipedia, and will not understand a lot of the workings that go on and the rules by which we operate by. I think we've got to assume that the edits considered vandalism by a user are regarded as 'mistakes' or 'errors of judgement' on their part before we start calling them a vandal. Sometimes, they didn't realise they'd vandalised a page and apologise, and we now have someone who is more aware of what they are doing. Some go to the sandbox after being told that 'vandalising' articles is wrong. That's why I believe in good-faith while on anti-vandal work.
5 Optional question from Hiberniantears: Do you regard adminship as a promotion/reward for your fine anti-vandal service, or as a natural expansion of tools to perform completely the tasks in which you are already involved? Why?
A: I do not believe that adminship is an award for any service. I have already recieved an award for my anti-vandal services in the form of a barnstar, and adminship is very, very different. It is a role that furthers ones' abilities in your particular field. I wouldn't refer to it as a 'reward', or 'a graduation'. It just allows greater ability and control over the tasks you've become accustomed to performing up to now.
6 Optional question from Politics rule:Could you please explain the comment promising New England support in his possible future RFA, because he supported you? Thank you.
A: Yes, and thanks for giving me an opportunity to do this publicly. I initially thanked him for his support, and he replied with a message complimenting my work on Wikipedia. I thought that was very nice of him, and replied back, but because I didn't know him that well on Wikipedia, I didn't really know what to say. But I wanted to say something so I didn't seem ingnorant, you see? I went and said that. Looking back now it looks awfully foolish, I agree, and I wish I'd said something else, but what's done now can't be undone (well on here it can, but I'm not deleting it because that would darken my image further). I admit it is a foolish mistake, and I'd also like to apologise to New England for bringing him under fire from other users too - I feel a real idiot after all that. But I'd like everyone to know that I was only trying to be nice.

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Abstain from expressing an opinion on this RfA. People may find this interesting. --Deskana (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this really that big a deal? Would people find it particularly interesting if I started listing off editors I'd support in an RFA? I'd openly tell them as much too, to encourage them to apply. Given that he said this after he was supported, what's the big deal? WilyD 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with WillyD. I just fail to see, how whom the user would / would not support, would make that user better or worse as an admin. Now, "I'll give you $5 to support me", "I'll support you if you support me" etc, that's bad. However, that is not the case here, as I see it. I wouldn't hesitate either, to tell a user that I'd support them, either. --SXT4⊕ 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your opinons. I simply wished this comment to be seen here, as it is possibly relevant to some people. I have expressed absolutely no opinion whatsoever on the candidate. --Deskana (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain per Deskana above. Hirohisat Talk 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I find what Deskana has to be very interseting, strengthing my view that he (Lradrama) should not be an admin, and why New England is getting defensive to the !opposed votes. Politics rule 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I would call my comment to one voter more of a clarification than getting defensive. New England (C) (H) 01:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused how you can abstain per no opinion given. Atropos 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
For your clarification, I voted a abstain vote because it made me wonder if this user truly knows some of the Rfa policies. Other than that, the user shows great potential, but at this time I'm abstaining from voting. --Hirohisat Talk 05:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow... if you wish to "abstain" just don't comment. If you wish to make a note without making a "formal" comment do as I'm doing here. As far as the oppose votes, please look past the edit counters folks. Does this user have the temperament to be an admin? Process is so complicated these days that its almost easier to read up on it when you encounter it then try to learn it all, I still don't know every policy in the book, but a little common sense and knowledge that what we are doing here is to write and maintain an encyclopedia (right?), serves folks just fine. As long as people can be confident that a person won't make rash actions, and won't be so stubborn as to refuse the idea they are wrong (thus causing edit wars), adminship is fine. Remember, adminship is no big deal. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason I specifically abstained from making any comment on the RfA is so that I am able to close it without any conflicts of interest. I don't know why Hirohisat did the same. --Deskana (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • As for me, I took Deskana's comment as a abstain vote, not as a administrator action. If it raised some concerns, I apologize for that.--Hirohisat Talk 05:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - Well I believes the user has enough experience since he has been her for over 5 months and his edit count is excellent to even though his wikipedia project space contributions is too low , I believe he can make and excellent admin with a bit of coaching from more experienced admins. I don't believe he will abuse the tool in any way since his track record shows he is very determined. Good Luck..--Cometstyles 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support this user has gained my trust via the answers to the questions. New England 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support OK, the comment about promising to support may have been a bit silly but overall I think this person being an admin will contribute to the 'pedia growing.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per Casliber. Answers to the questions are fine. Note that some of the Oppose votes below are based on misapprehension of the facts (Lradrama is an active article-writer, and has never been blocked). If this request doesn't pass this time round, I urge the candidate to try again in a few months. WaltonOne 09:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. ugen64 10:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support After due consideration and your answer to Q6. I see writing skills. I see vandalism reversion. I see interaction. I also see honesty and that you are prepared to admit a perceived mistake. RFA is about trust and I see no reason not to trust this candidate. I take note of the opposes and where they are valid I urge you to consider them, but nothing in them weakens my support. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Has good enough experience, the effect of making this user a sysop should be positive. The New England incident is likely to be a minor lapse of judgement. Hooray, a human! GDonato (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, changed from neutral. Come to think of it, I see no compelling reason not to support. —AldeBaer (c) 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Changed from neutral to support. I'm impressed with the user's answers to questions 4,5 and 6. I feel that the whole thing with New England is just a judgemental misstep, I don't think that it will cause an issue as far as misuse of tools. Trusilver 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support, I see no evidence that the user would abuse the tools. Furthermore, whom a user would / would not support in RfA should have no bearing on that user's RfA, in my opinion. --SQL⊕ 16:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Trust is there, that's all that matters. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per TheFearow; I see no reason to distrust this user. He may not be very experienced yet, but I think he'll do fine as an admin. SalaSkan 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Why not?—arf! 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Trustworthy editor, comments left on talk page are largely over exaggerated in this vote. PeteShanosky 14:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support - Great editor. Will do good work SLSB talk ER 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Concerns raised do not make me think user will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Seems to have the correct priorities for an admin, and none of the concerns below put up a red-flag for me CitiCat ♫ 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Looks good to me. Dureo 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose You have a healthy amount of edits, yet I am always concerned when I see nominees whose top contribution is their own userpage. Out of your four thousand plus edits, fewer than five hundred of those are to Wikipedia space. I am a little concerned with your having been blocked, although it appears it may have been an misunderstanding. I see a lot of RV'ing, but little contribution to any article or Wikipedia space. While I think your vandal fighting is great, I do not feel you have a grasp on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ozgod 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. I've looked over this editor's past work and he has created four articles himself and made large substantive contributions to a dozen or so more. To me that shows knowledge and competence in working with mainspace. I'm not comprehending how you feel that he has little contribution to "any article or Wikipedia space." Could you expand on this? Trusilver 16:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    Per the comment about this using having been blocked, it appears this user has never been blocked, no evidence of it in the block log.--Sandahl 04:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    Hence why I struck it out. The confusion arose from this [1] in the user's talk page history. I should have checked the block log before stating it in my opposition. --Ozgod 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    Is having your userspace your most commonly edited page really a big deal? I've edited User:WilyD/Sandbox/ more than any other page, and User:WilyD/Sandbox2/ beats out any article (though not every talk). I don't have a problem with "discounting" the experience of fiddling with your page, but just playing with a lot shouldn't be a sin. WilyD 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Candidate has very little experience in project-space, a key area for admin-related tasks. Xoloz 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose I do not think he has been her long enough in order to gain my trust. Sorry. I have changed to Strong Oppose because of the evidence of Lradrama promising New England support in his RFA. This evidence is putting me to Strong Oppose. Politics rule 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ummm you changed to Strong Support? Is that a typo? Captain panda 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yes sorry. Politics rule 14:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Lradrama appears to be functioning well as a recent changes patroller and article contributor. On that level, I trust that Lrdrama has a fairly good grasp of policy. Unfortunately, the comment left for User:New England and subsequent promise of support lead me to question Lradrama's interpretation of adminship and judgment. It could be interpreted as a poorly thought-out attempt to be polite, but it doesn't make me comfortable supporting. I may change my opinion pending the answer to optional question 5. Leebo T/C 20:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    For the record, I took more as a courtesy thing than a real promise, and I do not intend on going through an RFA anytime soon (been in two really heated disputes recently, but if someone wants to nominate me....) New England (C) (H) 20:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Few contributions to Wikipedia space outside AIV, and in particular no AfD edits, suggest that this editor has yet to acquire sufficient experience for adminship. Espresso Addict 22:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose You have a reasonable number of edits in mainspace, and in user-talk, but disapointingly few in WP:NAMESPACE - which is to say Wikipedia, wiki-talk, AfD, etc. We can only assess your suitability for the admin role on the basis of your participation in admin-related tasks. I see very little. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. OpposeI think you are not ready to be an admin. Stillstudying 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - User has under 2000 mainspace edits, and over half his total edits are to talk pages, not articles. There's very little in the project spaces, and not much in the way of XfD material in contribs, either, which tends to be a large part of admin work. Editcount doesn't count, but editing areas do. MSJapan 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - This time through... you're on the right track, I just want to see more experience. Keep up the good work, and civility! Hiberniantears 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - limited contributions to wikipedia namespace to demonstrate understanding of policy, particularly with regard to XFD, which would be important in your role as an administrator. When this area have been addressed in a few more months, I will be happy to support. Keep up the good work :). ck lostsword•T•C 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose not enough experience yet. Keep working and contribute to the deletion discussions, and you'll get there in a few months. - KrakatoaKatie 22:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - I regretfully oppose. You seem to be a fine editor (keep up the good work! :) ), but I'm not convinced that you would be a good administrator yet. I noticed particularly that your Wikipedia namespace contribution count is low, which, in particular, doesn't inspire confidence. The error with the suggested arbitrary support of another candidate is forgivable, but it doesn't help. If you apply again in the future, I may yet support you - deal with the issues here and you'll be a fine candidate. Nihiltres(t.l) 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Unsuitable username. Change it for your next RfA. Nick 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Weak oppose - sorry you're a good editor and in 6-8 weeks I'll support, however your project space contributions indicate that you have only started to gain deletion process experience in the last few days. Addhoc 13:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral You have great admin potential but there is more to the role than vandal-whacking. Try making contributions to the article space in addition to your regular patrols; finding references; adding citations where appropriate and other equally valuable additions to the body of knowledge that we are here to amass. You can also demonstrate your knowledge of the policies and guidelines by citing them when contributing to XfD discussions and when giving reasons for tagging articles for deletion too. Admins live by these policies, so getting used to citing them before the request is made on your Talk page would be a good thing. A little more experience in this area will serve to show that you know your way around the main areas of Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Your answer to question one could be performed by pretty much anyone, and your edits are not amazing (over 300 in your own userspace), but otherwise I have no reason to distrust you. J-stan Talk 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I too see a great potential, but I am not ready to give you my support...yet. You will be a great admin someday, but first your need to just get out and edit more. I think you are well on your way however. Jmlk17 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - I see considerable potential also, and would be inclined to vote for you with more expereince. Keep up the hard work! old windy bear 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    (changed to support)Neutral - I feel that overall his skills as an editor are excellent. However, the edit presented by Leebo above makes me question his judgement. There are several things that sound completely innocent when you are thinking them, but don't come out the same way into print. I don't distrust the user, I just think that maybe it's just a little too early. Trusilver 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Change to support. Trusilver 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral You need a bit more experience. Try again in a few more monts and I will give you my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    (changed to support) Moral neutral. In addition to the concerns already raised, I don't think an admin with "drama" in xyr username is a good idea. You may want to consider changing it. —AldeBaer (c) 10:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I used the same strategy that you used for RFA recently and it did not work. As for any admin hopeful I suggest that you work on RfA and XfD. Your kindness champaign work is really good and I want to see that be kept up. Marlith 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, too much focus on userspace and lack of XfD participation. 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by @pple (talk • contribs)
    Just making it more apparent whom placed the comment, since the username was left out on the sig... --SXT4⊕ 04:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Very sorry. I falsely put 5 tildes ~~~~~ instead of four. AW 15:47, 19 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.beta.math.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Testwiki:Requests_for_adminship/Lradrama&oldid=21262"