Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 2

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

No1lakersfan

Final (2/10/2); Ended 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No1lakersfan (talk · contribs) – I am proud to nominate User: No1lakersfan (Willy) to become a WP administrator. I recommended to Willy in April to hold off on requesting this status when he first expressed a desire to become a WP administrator, as he is a very bright and goal-oriented young person. I suggested rather, that he work to develop a track record before submitting the Rfa to a vote. He has done this, and well I believe. We both live in the Virginia Peninsula sub-region of the Hampton Roads Virginia area. We have worked together on a number of articles involving our area (i.e. history, geography, and biographical topics and land transportation) and we both belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia as well. Willy is a high school senior who hopes to be accepted to attend one of Virginia's public universities in the fall of 2007. I do not know him personally, but only through WP, but I have formed an impression of the kind of young person who epitomizes what we need more of in WP, specifically young people who are seriously interested in what we are trying to accomplish and willing to work to support it. In the time he has been an editor (since March 2006), I have seen responsible collaboration, good fact and reference gathering, appropriate deliberation and caution, and even-handedness. I believe his track record of good edits speaks to this. He has my trust to join our ranks of Wikipedia:Administrators, and I hope those of fellow Wikipedians. Vaoverland 10:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes, am pleased to accept this nomination to become an administrator on Wikipedia. I hope to continue with the work I have done, while being able to take on some new tasks. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I plan on being able to continue helping out with the Special:Broken Redirects, while also helping to keep the backlog with the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to a minimum. I will also help out anywhere else there is a backlog that needs the help of administrators. I also plan to make sure that any actions that I take as an administrator are approved by all, as I do not want to revert any of my actions for people that oppose what I do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I feel that I have made some very good contrbutions to pages such as Virginia State Route 143, Virginia State Highway 105, and any other pages associated with Virginia State Highways. I have also created a page for Woodside High School (Newport News), one of the high schools in my neighborhood.
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?
A: Recently I was helping to update pages that have the old reference format using a reference converter. I used the converter on a page, but people objected to what I did. When I was contacted by somebody that writes for that page, I let them know that I was not aware of the rule WP:FN#Converting_citation_styles, and that I would be more careful in the future when I use a refernce converter. I believe in peaceful conflict resolution, and will not enter into any edit wars with anybody.

Optional question from Kukini (talk · contribs)

4. I am concerned about your apparent campaign for votes from other users, such as this edit here [1]. I am curious about how you would respond to my concern. Why should this not be seen as spamming user talk pages for votes? - Kukini 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A:
General comments
  • I feel that being an administrator on Wikipedia is a privilege, but it is a privilege for responsible people that know how to use their powers wisely. I feel that as I continue to work with Wikipedia I will learn more and more abut how to use the site as I have since I registered as a user.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support In addition to my comments in nomination statement, his maintenance work on categories and references as well as on articles within several WikiProjects in which I also am active all indicate good collaborative efforts. He has my strong support. Vaoverland 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I've got a good feeling about this candidate and have found that following my feelings is the best way to get to places that feel good. I hope we give this young wikipedian a chance to prove himself. Lack of wikiexperience can be made up with good intentions and hard work. Carptrash 00:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that Carptrash has been canvassed for his vote so may be voting under pressure. SilkTork 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Insufficient project-space editcount implies unfamiliarity with process. Most of yours are Wikiproject-related, anyway. This nomination is very premature. You should have done a lot more communicating as well. - crz crztalk 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Strong oppose Stronger oppose Strongerer oppose per Crz. I'm very happy that you're such a good contributor to articles, keep that up. But article contributions show no use for admin tools, and you don't have very many edits not related to article building. Adminship isn't just "good contributor" status. By the way, as a general piece of unrelated advice, don't try to do things only if they're approved by all. Nothing is approved by everyone. -Amarkov blahedits 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose per Aeropagitica's second diff. I admit, I've speedy kept a few things, which I'm technically not supposed to do unless I'm an admin. But I've never made a decision when it involved evaluating consensus, which is prohibited, unlike the simple reccommendation for not speedy keeping, and I definitely haven't closed as delete, which it should be obvious non-admins can not do. WP:IAR doesn't mean you can drop process whenever you feel like it, and admins must understand that. If you block, protect, or delete something out of process, and it turns out you were wrong, you are in big trouble. -Amarkov blahedits 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. Stronger now due to votestacking. I hope I don't have to go to "strongest oppose", but this is just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. -Amarkov blahedits 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And now I see he's gone through a few articles and removed {{ref}} tags, saying they're "unneeded". Not quite enough for strongest oppose, but bad. -Amarkov blahedits 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Strong Oppose Not enough experience with XfD. Dionyseus 22:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose per new evidence provided by User:Amarkov that shows the candidate has canvassed for votes. Dionyseus 01:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose- Not enough Wikipedia edits--SUIT 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per the disturbing evidence (especially regarding votestacking) unearthed by Amarkov and per the distressing concerns of CrzRussian. And the fact that you initially screwed up this RfA makes me concerned about your knowledge (or lack of) of Wikipedia process. Sorry. --210physicq (c) 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually Kukini in Q4 here who found that particular diff. -Amarkov blahedits 00:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yes. Sorry. I remembered the diff because I was the one who reverted said edit. --210physicq (c) 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Though the candidate looks fine, I'm concerned that his goal since joining Wiki has been to become an Admin, and that he is applying subtle pressure on people to vote for him, yet he is unable to provide any convincing reasons as to why he should be given the job. It looks like the Admin status is being sought for its own sake - that is for prestige and power - rather than out of a sense of duty and responsibility SilkTork 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  7. Oppose Eek, closing your own AfD nomination is wrong and when they are deletes that's bad - It raises concerns over WP:NPOV and questions impartiality over the AfD process, especially to outsiders. Also, a non-admin closing an AfD is silly- it's not explicitly against the rules but it leaves an AfD closed with the article still present, ideally an admin will delete an article at the same time as closing the AfD. I was edit conflicted voting Neutral and the edit conflict brought to light canvassing by the nominator. I'm now reluctantly opposing. Sorry. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Oppose, sorry, but canvassing related to this RfA, especially with the request to support, makes this a maleformed attempt to guage concensus. Also, you have not demonstrated experience in admin areas, especially in the project namespace. Diffs: Candidate canvassing: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Nominator canvassing: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you realize that was the nominator, not the candidate, so it's not necessarily his fault. -Amarkov blahedits 01:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, but it still is attempting to create a false sense of concensus, which makes me oppose this nomination as it is tainted. Nevertheless, I expanded on my original statement.
    It doesn't matter much, his contribs show that he's done it too, just not in the diffs you specify. -Amarkov blahedits 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Phaw, that's how I'm confused :) I added to the original diffs I gave with the new ones. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, for the canvassing misstep. I don't see that as the end of the world, but more of an error in judgment that clarifies poor understanding of norms in wikipedia. Although I remain interested in reading your thoughts on question 4. Also curious about the nominator canvassing now. -Kukini 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No: All of this candidate's edits since the acceptance of this nom have been votespamming. That's NOT acceptable. Scobell302 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Your contributions show you to be a good editor but I see some notable omissions, namely lack of vandal warnings issued on user Talk pages and a low number of XfD contributions. I am also concerned about XfD participation such as this and this, where you closed AfD pages without having the power to effect the 'delete' decision. I think that with this also being mentioned on your editor review that you have learned that non-admins can only close unequivocal 'keep' articles, yes? To summarise, I will turn from neutral to support when I see evidence of vandal fighting and associated warnings - perhaps contributions to WP:AIV as well, and a demonstration of applications of policies and guidelines at Xfd discussions. (aeropagitica) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As has been discussed elsewhere, most recently (to my knowledge) in the Workshop of the Konstable arbitration case, there is some guidance against non-admins closing XfD's with a delete result, but there is no strict policy against doing so and other respected non-admins have done it from time to time. I haven't finished evaluating this candidacy, but I think a couple of closures of Xfd's with WP:SNOW level deletion !votes should not be disqualifying. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He was also the nominator, which makes it worse. -Amarkov blahedits 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I didn't spot that, that's definitely not appropriate. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per crz. You haven't really done much with the project. Wikipedia Admins need to actively participate in and work with the community. I am only voting neutral because I do not wish to opppose an espiring (and, hopefully, future) Administrator. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.