Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lightdarkness

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Lightdarkness

edit

Final (124/6/4) ended 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lightdarkness (talk · contribs) – I first met lightdarkness in January. Since then, I have watched him grow as a Wikipedian. He has about 10000 edits, and over 1200 deleted edits. He is involved in a variety of projects. He is active in disambiguation, stub-sorting, image tagging, tagging speedys, AfD, RC patrol, and spoken Wikipedia. He even founded the Wikiproject on user warning layout standardization, after noticing that lots of IP talk pages were difficult to read. He came up with the godmodelight fix, developed ARV to help RC patrollers report vandals on AIV, and wrote LDBot, from scratch, to take over the function of AllyUnion’s AFDbot. In my experience, he has always been patient and willing to help newbies, as shown here. In short, I think Jay has proven to be a valuable contributor, and is ready for the mop and bucket. Shanel 18:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate as well ☎ -- (drini's page) 19:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
benon nominates as well :p Benon 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination(s) :P --lightdarkness (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Extreme nominator support.--Shanel 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support - per nom -- Tawker 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. extreme edit conflict support one of the best candiates for admin in my book :D Benon 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support definitely would make a good admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support Great contributor, will make an excellent admin TigerShark 00:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, activity in building an encyclopedia includes participating in the Spoken Wikipedia project, which I have seen him be a part of. Good contributions to AFD, including filling in for AFD Bot. Note that vandalwhacker != good admin, but the converse is also true: vandalwhacker != bad admin. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support of course, give the guy the mop.--Adam    (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as a trustworthy editor and valuable vandal fighter. Lightdarkness has also helped me iron out some problems with my own js tools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Excellent editor. I was just about to nominate you myself. Feezo (Talk) 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - yes. - Richardcavell 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Opposition for Adminship based on large number of vandalism reverts seems like an oxymoron to me.--Firsfron 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support all the way. --Jay(Reply) 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Absolutely; nom tells it well. ~ PseudoSudo 02:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Would make a great admin. — TheKMantalk 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I'd like to find something funny to say in relation to your username, but I'm at a lack of words :). -Mysekurity [m!] 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Great vandal fighter would be a very good admin. --Adam1213 Talk + 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support very good user. I was so darn sure that this person was already an admin. kind of blows my mind that they're not.--Alhutch 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --Rory096 02:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC) changed to oppose. --Rory096 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Joe I 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. More like this candidate, pleaseTM Support! (not everyone has to do everything. Sure, more this and that would always be good, but... (I expect to get dinged for "not enough" vandal fighting when the time comes) ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong double-conflicted support, "Whaddya mean he's not already an editor?!?" cliche in effect --Deville (Talk) 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, uh, he already is an editor. I think you mean admin :) -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. All experiences with this user have been positive, and answers to questions sealed the deal. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - My interactions with this editor have been always excellent. Deserving of mop and bucket. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, solid answers to extended question set. Kuru talk 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oui, oui! Everything I've seen's been good, no problems here. (editconflicted support!) -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support per nom. When first I read that Shanel was nominating Lightdarkness, I knew I'd want to vote "support" and figured I'd be one of the first three or four. Instead, twenty-plus people have already expressed support in the RfA's first three hours; perhaps that immediate and overwhelming outpouring of "support" votes says it all. Joe 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - thankyou for replying to my question Lightdarkness.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Like Totally Support Dude I thought you were an admin already. Can't believe you're not! Awesome editor, deserves a mop very much so. joshbuddytalk 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, looks good. Kusma (討論) 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. of course. pschemp | talk 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Excellent. (^'-')^ Covington 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support would have liked more time here on Wikipedia but what there has been has been good. :-) Jedi6-(need help?) 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Knowledgeable about policy, and we always need more good people working the vandalism frontier. Writing skills are not a prerequisite to adminship - give me an in-the-trenches vandalwhacker any day. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Go go gadget vandal fighter!⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support; this is an excellent candidate, no qualms at all. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Even if I hadn't seen Lightdarkness's good works, I don't think I'll ever doubt Shanel's judgement. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. This recent rash of discrimination against those who work to stave off vandalism puzzles me. Greatly. Silensor 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Merecat 06:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Fantastic work! DarthVader 07:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Wikipeda would benefit from him having the mop. —Whouk (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Fits all my requirements to be an admin, even exceeds expectations in vandal fighting. Have personally seen some of his contributions and they strenthen my belief in his abilities. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --Terence Ong 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Worthy of adminship. --Ali K 11:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, great editor. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --Rob from NY 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weak support, I don't have experience with this candidate myself, but judging by others' comments, he seems all right. JIP | Talk 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Candidate seems level-headed and devoted to the project, as a vandal-dealer-wither type he should make good use of admin tools. --W.marsh 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support for everything Sceptre (Talk) 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. — FireFox • T [14:53, 11 April 2006]
  52. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support in my experience on RC patrol and speedy deletions I've noticed lots of good contributions from this user. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support--Jusjih 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Moe ε 16:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per nom and answers to questions below. --Elkman - (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support JoshuaZ 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Says will help out with WP:RFI, good candidate, thought was one already, per all above; I think you get the idea... Petros471 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support oh yeah.  Grue  18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support insert support cliche here Where (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, always sensible. Accurizer 20:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, trust not to abuse admin tools. — xaosflux Talk 20:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Extrene-Shanel-stole-my-nomination -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (e) 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - been around for more than a year, > 3 months of serious activity, and all of that activity has been good. Great candidate, and will do the mop proud. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support This user has shown his abilities in vandalism fighting. His edits have helped Wikipedia get rid of vandalism. Should be given the mop so that he can be much more effective! --Andy123(talk) 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. An excellent contributor and vandal whacker. --TantalumTelluride 23:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Super can't-believe-you're-not-already support! --M@thwiz2020 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Cleared for Adminship per all of the above. --Pilot|guy  23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, even though I generally don't vote when the outcome already seems determined. I was extremely impressed by the answers below, and the patience displayed in answering all of them. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. I've seen him around and thought he was one. I'd like to see him around in article space more, but all of the behind-the-scenes work and reverting of vandalism tells me that he could certainly use the admin tools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong Support. Very full and sensible answers below. Again, I'm especially supportive of RFAs from vandal-fighters who will be able to do their job more effectively if they can block vandals themselves. Bucketsofg 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I thought you were already an admin. Royboycrashfan   04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support good candidate for admin --rogerd 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support —Wayward Talk 07:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Solid Support 1200 deleted edits can't be wrong. Support Newpage patrollers. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. "Whoa... he's not?"-cliche-support! Constantly beating me on reverting. --Misza13 T C 08:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, it is a falsehood that I am not failing to be unimpressed with his answers. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support What's with the quadruple negative that guy above me used? That's hard to do. Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my question to him and his answer below :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support why not?, I'm suprised he's not a admin already to be honest. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Edit conflict Support. Whack all those vandals out there with that mop! -- Tangotango 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - I thought he was! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Yes indeed! Flowerparty? 17:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. 'Support Vandal fighters needed as well as editors CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Thought I allredy supported Support Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. This page is 46 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Thought he already was one/thought I'd already voted/pileon support! —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Likeable, experienced user. _-M o P-_ 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Let there be light..... darkness!!! -  Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per question  ALKIVAR™  01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I've seen this user around quite a bit and I think that LD definitely should have the mop. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Knowledgeable, dedicated to anti-vandalism. Would make a good admin. T. J. Day 04:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Solid, respectable work with keeping the encyclopedia in good shape. And yeah, put me in with the "he wasn't already?!" camp! Warrens 05:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, meets my standards. --Cyde Weys 05:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I can see reason to oppose this editor.--MONGO 06:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support A good, responsible vandal fighter as well as my baby's daddy. --InShaneee 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. 99 getter!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100! Haha. --Khoikhoi 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support yes yes. — Deckiller 22:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support.--blue520 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Finally got a working godmode-lite from this user. Shows a responsible no-nonsense approach in answers to questions as well.Nogwa 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, Have seen them very active around Wikipedia. VegaDark 06:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Extreme Utimate Support. 101% committed for the good of the Wikipedia Community! Keep it up. Ruennsheng 08:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Whenever I see this editor he is putting in good work fighting "teh infamous vandals". I believe awarding him the mop can only help wikipedia. Well deserved. Banez 12:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Very active fighting the vandals, should make a great admin --Scott 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Robert 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support MatriX 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support to the max' Sasquatch t|c 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. Exellent editor, with admin potential since the start. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Suppport. Answers seem to show a good understanding of policy. — TKD::Talk 19:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support I've seen him about before, and it wasn't even vandal wacking but creating some sort of programme to update a page... forget now, but the name stuck in my head Robdurbar 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Unneccessary vote, but a case of "I thought the user already was!" TeKE 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support It's good that he also supports other wikis which are facing vandal attacks. Ucucha (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Now support, b/c 10,000 represents such a very large commitment; I would ask that he be careful to remove the m from any non-minor edits. Otherwise Watchlists and RC's are messed up. Derex 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I moved this from the "Oppose" section below. The user changed his vote but didn't move it here.--Shanel § 18:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support of course. NoSeptember talk 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I thought... :-) Prodego talk 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support per the nominator and my (limited) experience with the user. However, I would suggest (based upon the Oppose votes) that you make more non vandal reverting edits.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I've got a good feeling about this user, I think he has proven that he understands policy, stays civil and that he interacts well with other users. --JoanneB 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Not that my vote will matter that much, but I feel that somebody has got to do the "nitty-gritty" work of stub-sorting and reverting vandalism. You have done all of that quite well, and much, much more. I know the vandal's work from both sides of the table, committing the act and cleaning it up. You will be a great admin. And, kudos to you for answering all of those optional questions! Thistheman 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, your last 500 mainspace edits have been vandalism reverts, a good portion of your 10000 are likely to be vandal reverts. By not working on (or, working very little on) articles it doesn't necessarily help build an encyclopedia, and fail my criteria. Weak oppose. NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 00:54 UTC (2006-04-11)
  2. Oppose. Per NSLE. Also, how can there be 9 support votes when he hasn't even answered the questions? Lou franklin 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There were only four questions originally, and he answered those. The rest are questions people have added only now. It's not reasonable to expect him to answer 13(!) extra questions yet.--Shanel 01:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lou franklin, to address your question: the RfA questions are designed to give voters insight on candidates they are less than familiar with. I've personally worked with Lightdarkness enough to not need his personal written persuasion to trust him as an admin, thus the appearance of my vote at this time. ~ PseudoSudo 02:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I should note that I posted the majority of those questions after I had voted support, mostly I've found more questions help an voter see what an editor is all about, I didn't need the questions to vote, I just thought the additional insight might help some voters -- Tawker 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is also indef blocked for POV pushing / vandalism, might be something to strongly consider. -- Tawker 03:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reduced to a week pending the outcome of his ArbCom case, actually. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose Editor has only been active in the community for three months. Certainly, he has a great start, but I'd like to see a little more editing time before mophood. Xoloz 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above. --Masssiveego 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I looked at his last 1500 edits. 99% of these are marked minor. Not good, whether they are actually all minor or not. Now support, b/c 10,000 represents such a very large commitment; I would ask that he be careful to remove the m from any non-minor edits. Otherwise Watchlists and RC's are messed up. Derex 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. --Rory096 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    <rory096> i can't support someone who has the cabal behind them removing comments from RfAs - is his reason just for the record -- Tawker 04:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I forgot the part about the cabal then threatening me with a block. I'm sorry I have to do this. --Rory096 04:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this - it was a revert by Essjay (the 'crat) it wasn't exactly appropiate on an RfA page - Tawker 04:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because he's a bcrat doesn't mean he's not a member of the cabal looking out for his friends (in fact that makes him more likely to do it). It was a valid question; I'm not sure if I want someone who says things like what appeared to be implied on their own RfA to be an admin. BTW, can you use a few less indents? I'm afraid this discussion is going to end up being one word per line on the far right of the page pretty soon. --Rory096 04:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hardly see implying that a candidates statements have something to do with Masturbation as a valid comment it smacks more of a WP:POINT violation as does your vote. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All of you, please WP:AGF and remain civil. NSLE (T+C) at 01:39 UTC (2006-04-17)
  6. Oppose per NSLE. --SR Bryant 18:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Need more experience. Practically started editing in mid-January, 2006. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Serious reservations based on candidate not being active long enough, and having not enough articlespace participation other than vandal cleanup. Main redeeming virtue is bot implementation skills, sort of a technical specialist rating. The following is not a criticism of this particular candidate, but rather a general outlook on my part: I'm not keen on WP having too many admins who haven't been active in article writing, since that creates bureaucracy, and maybe doesn't hold sufficiently tightly to WP's goal as an encyclopedia writing project as opposed to a giant BBS. The senior admins at my university (i.e. the dean of this or that) are mostly selected from the professor ranks rather than having purely administrative or management backgrounds and I think that gives them a perspective that's better suited for the university's functions. I don't believe in editcountitis but I consider some reasonable level of involvement in article authoring (preferably in some serious subject and preferably including writing a few articles of moderate complexity from scratch) to be an important part of the mix of characteristics of good admin candidates. The articles written from scratch don't have to be FA level or anything like that, just not trivial. Phr 05:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: I think users showing interest and reasonable discretion vandal reversion should be given rollback buttons more or less on request, which might reduce the need for creating so many admins. I'd have no problem at all with giving rollback to this candidate right now, but adminship should wait a little longer. Phr 05:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now. Reverting vandalism, stub sorting, VfD, and stub-sorting can give a highly inflated edit count compared to users who primarily write and edit articles. I'd like to see a little more writing, and a couple more months' overall experience. ProhibitOnions 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, Lightdarkness is a great vandalfighter but I'm not sure anyone who has been editing for only 3 months in earnest should be given adminship.--Isotope23 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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.
A: My main sysop chore would involve vandalism, making sure that WP:AIV is dealt with quickly. I would also get more involved at WP:RFI. When it was VIP, I would help sort through the reports with Pathoschild to get the reports to the right place (Which led to the creation of Template:AIV not RFI); with sysop tools, I would better be able to take the appropriate actions after investigation. I would also close AFD discussions, as well as PROD'd articles. In addition, I would tend to CAT:CSD, as recently it at times has been backlogged (I'm sure I contributed to that backlog :P).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm very proud of my spoken contributions to the project, most importantly Raney nickel and Douglas Adams. Raney Nickel for it's complexity (I had to read many forumlas), and Douglas Adams for it's shear length. I was even able to finish their recordings before they hit the main page, giving the Spoken WikiProject a bit more exposure. I also have a little sense of acomplisment for two of my rather recent stubs. They include Mitchel Musso and The Jonas Brothers. Both had been speedied deleted by other administrators (Rightfully so, the previous versions were very fancrufty and didn't assert notability, to any admin, they'd look like A7's). I took some time to get some solid information, and recreated the articles to reflect other stubs in their genre's (Actor, Band). I do intend to expand both of them.
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: I haven't run into any conflicts while editing, but there have been a few cases where users were upset about me tagging their article for speedy deletion. I would just explain to the user why I tagged it, and point them in the appropriate direction of the guideline. In a few cases, I've offered to AFD their article, so that the community can voice their opinion (Which, there is an example of on my talk page, see the subheading "Speedy Deletion"). None of this has really caused me stress... there was one user who decided to IM me, and personally attack me, and attack me because I am American (I still have the conversation if any users would like to see it). I calmly explained the situation, offered to take it to AFD (He declined), and after warning him that further personal attacks on me would warrant a block (On Instant messenger) I blocked him, and haven't heard from him since. Neither of which, caused me any stress, nor affected my mood negatively.


Questions from Tawker stolen from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE:

  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?
    A: First of all, I would confront the user about the situation, see if there is any merit in me continuing my accusation. Afterwards, I would list the incident at WP:AN/I, gather more information and see if other admins agree the user is using sockpuppets. Then I'd file a request for checkuser, and see where that brings us. From that point, I would ask another sysop to carry out the appropriate action, or even take it to the ArbCom, as I would be an involved party.
  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?
    A: I would contact the admin who speedy’d the article via talk pages or IRC if they are on freenode. I'd ask them what they thought qualified it for speedy criteria; I'd give them my opinion, and discuss the most appropriate action. If we disagree, I'd suggest taking it to WP:AFD. If we agree after hearing each others viewpoints however, then the whole situation is solved. : D
  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?
    A: After leaving the note on the talk page, and if it's re-created, I would place a {{deletedpage}} notice on the page. After the incivil comments, I would alert the user to WP:NPA, and warn appropriately. If the user continues to make incivil/personal attack comments, I would alert another admin on IRC to the situation, as I would be a conflict of interest.
  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?
    A:I would submit a comment to the RFAR, with my expirences in attempting to mediate. If however the RFAR was rejected, I would attempt to establish contact via email (if they are still blocked) for via the appropriate talk pages. Hopefully though, it wouldn't reach the RFAR stage, as it would cause less stress for both editors involved. I would continue to help both editors through the conflict even after the RFAR (or lack there of), to ensure that another edit war doesn't erupt
  5. How would you respond to users who argue that your work has been almost exclusively in vandal fighting(even the article which you are most proud of you only have 14 edits, most of which are adding pictures) and that this lack of constructive (rather than anti-destructive) edits gives them reservations about making you an admin?
    A:The argument that I mainly do vandal fighting is totally valid, and by no means am I saying otherwise. When I first considered the nomination for adminship, I knew that this would arise. My reply to those users is that, yes we are building an encyclopedia, but then again, we need to maintain it too. Its things like vandalism that prevents my very own health teacher for regarding Wikipedia as a bad website. It's always been my goal to improve the credibility of Wikipedia, and if I can offer that through vandalism reverts, I believe that is as much needed as new material. My ability to correct vandalism is far higher than my ability to write comprehensive, in-depth articles.
  6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A: Wikipedia has evolved so much as a website since I first began lurking in 2004. There isn't really anything I would change about the website, as it's been proven to be a helpful resource to many school aged kids, including myself. The way in which operations are conducted on Wikipedia, are fine in my opinion, and don't require drastic changes.
  7. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A: There are only 2 cases where I would indefinitely block a user. The first would be an obvious sockpuppet (or rather, imitator), e.g. Lightdarkness on Wheels, ect. The second would be a FA Penis vandal, or similar vandal, as they are vandalism only accounts, used for the sole purpose of defacing Wikipedia.
    To give an example, User:You must accept PISSCHRIST as your savior was just created at 2:18, this is a case where I would indefinitely block.
  8. Suppose you are closing and AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is you answer any different if the two possibilities are between "no consensus" and "delete"?
    A It first depends on the type of article that is up for deletion. If the article is something along the lines of an internet forum, or a gaming clan, great care must be taken to weed out the sockpuppet/call to vote votes. If the RCU returns inconclusive, yet I still believe there is trickery afoot, then I would relist for a clearer consensus. If my only possibilities are no consensus and delete, I would have to err on the side of caution, and close as no consensus. Users can always nominate the article again, but I would prefer to re-list if possible.
  9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A: I don't believe there is a set number of people that need express their opinions on an AFD for it to be closed, but in most cases you should have more than 1-3 comments on the nom. If the comments are low, I'd take into consideration the content of the comments, such as how much research the user did on the subject before placing their vote. If it is apparent that the few users who did express their opinions did so while truly knowing what they were talking about, I would have no problem closing the nom. In all other cases, I would relist for a broader consensus. As for RfD and CfD, both of those *FD's get less attention than the others, especially RfD. If there are valid opinions for deletion/keep/ect, then just a few votes would suffice for deletion.
  10. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    Answer I deal with a lot of difficult situations on other websites, that could be considered stressful situations, but none of which have caused me any burnout. It is very unfortunate for the admins who do face burnout, but in my time here, and on other websites, I haven't experienced it, nor do I foresee myself being affected by it in the future. If however, I am stressed by a particular situation, I would wander over to the Esperanza IRC channel and be pepped up by the amazing people in that organization.
  11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    Answer I would like to become an administrator because I believe I can better support Wikipedia with sysop tools. Vandalism is obviously the biggest problem affecting Wikipedia, and being able to block vandals, without having to wait 10-15 minutes for a report on AIV to be processed, I can better handle the situation. In addition to vandalism, I also feel the need to help assist entries at WP:RFI, many times reports listed there aren't dealt with in a timely manor. CAT:CSD also gets backlogged from time to time, recently there has been to a request for help on WP:AN to clear the backlog at any given time.
  12. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    Answer I view adminship more as a technical position, the political aspects are left up to community consensus, the sysop tools provided help aid in cleaning up vandalism, blocking persistent vandals, protecting pages, page moves, ect. It is not the job of a sysop to create policy, but rather the communities.

Question from Blnguyen:

  1. I looked through about the last 3000 mainspace edits, and they are all reverts and AWB prompts. Can you please give examples of articles where you have made substantial edits, of a proactive nature, with which you are pleased - aside from the two stubs you have mentioned. (I do not mean to denigrate your massive contributions, just to inquire about your taking the initiative facets of your contribution). Regards,ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    A There's no denying a lot of my contributions are vandalism reverts, disambiguation repair, stub sorting, ect. I haven’t written a massive article, but what I am pleased with is my addition of infoboxes/movie posters to many Disney Channel Original Movie's articles (I’m a fan of the earlier ones). They took a bit of digging to find fair use images, and the information for the various producers, directors, cast, ect. Beyond several other stubs, I haven’t substantial edits. My strengths here at Wikipedia do revolve around vandalism, but I do make many minor edits to various articles to update new information. I hope this satisfies your question.

If you add more questions, please ping my talk page, I will respond as soon as I can, thank you. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Phr (moved from other section):

  1. You mentioned that "vandalism is obviously the biggest problem affecting Wikipedia". Could you elaborate on why you feel that way? What would you say the second or third biggest problems are, and why are they smaller than the vandalism problem? Phr 09:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A: The reason I feel that vandalism is the biggest problem, is because I use Wikipedia from school, and the last thing anyone need, is for some vandal to blank a high profile page and replace it with obscene images. It's things like that, which are giving Wikipedia bad press. The second biggest problem would be the addition of blatantly false information. This is causing a credibility problem, and is just as dangerous as vandalism. The third is kind of clumped with the other two, and that is the bad press that Wikipedia is getting. It's those reports (Which aren't always accurate themselves) that cause teachers (Including my own health teacher, as I mentioned earlier) to have the impression that you cannot use it as a source (But then again, you should always verify with the references).

OPTIONAL Questions from Lar :

  1. Do you think there is a reasonable upper bound on how many questions an Admin candidate can be expected to reasonably answer in a week's time, and has this list exceeded it yet? And did you know that answering questions is theoretically optional for the candidate? You may be on your way to a new record number of questions, how does that make you feel? (are your fingers sore yet?) ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Actually, my arm is kinda sore, but that is from sleeping wrong, not from typing :P. I think the canidate is expected to answer the standard 3, and a few optional questions should be no problem for the canidate. I feel that it is optional for the canidate to answer an additional 14 questions (Thanks Tawker :P), but I believe it would only help the canidate. And as for your last statment, I believe Tawker holds the record :P
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lightdarkness&oldid=1089265325"