Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lotsofissues


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

Lotsofissues
Withdrawn at(22/14/2) Withdrawn. Lotsofissues 01:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (would have ended 02:16 19 January 2006 (UTC))

– I notice Lotsofissues a lot in Wikipedia, mostly in documenting what media has said about WP. Today I decide to award this user with a barnstar for all the efforts. I looked on the talk page - and its all messed up with notes from anons (as most admins'), but the user page has no indication of admins powers. I glance over the contributions - clean ups, reverts and even more reverts (and no rollback!). I check Kate - 5829 edits (since February 2005)! I check RfA archives - no records. Something must be really wrong, I figure. Renata 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Renata.

Support Oppose
 * 1) As nominator. Renata 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Would be a good admin! Hand him the mop!  --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Great user --Jaranda wat's sup 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Lotsofsupport.  Lord  ViD 03:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Sharpdust 04:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Good editor --rogerd 05:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Ral315 (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. --  Phædriel  *whistle* 09:22, 12 January 2006
 * 10) Support. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, cliché. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 11:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, no problems with this user. The criticisms in the oppose vote seem quite minor. JIP 12:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I see no major problems with this user. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I have great faith that this user will comport himself properly as an admin. BD2412  T 22:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support The oppose votes are very weakly justified. KI 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. If the user has amlost a year of experiance, they can be promoted. -- Eddie 11:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) King of All the Franks 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Grue 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Martin 17:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. IMO, the many Pros outweigh the one con. Youngamerican 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support with reservations. try to take the high road.  Reflex Reaction 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Did not sign the acceptance of the nomination above with four ~'s; short answers to questions - answer to Q.2 is worrying; more importantly, the only time I ran into him was here. He appeared gruff, did not direct his views on the guidelines on the talk page, nor did he respond to my query on talk page. Nor is there any clear suggestion from him as to how one can determine apriori if 66% would like a DYK fact - a poor sense of judgement, imo. --Gurubrahma 06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I haven't had a lot of experience with Lotsofissues, but the one experience I do recall showed a significant lack of judgment in my opinion.  Here, Lotsofissues is discussing an attempt to intentionally mislead an employee of Encyclopedia Brittanica that happened to be poking around asking questions and making comments.  This combined with his brevity in responding to questions leads me to oppose at this time.  Dragons flight 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Dragons flight. That's absolutely unacceptable for an admin. N (t/c) 16:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Per Dragons flight. C'mon. Voice of  All T 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose. I usually don't oppose people I don't really know, but I'm sick and tired of watching people screw around with others in the name of Wikipedia. We've already got an image crisis, don't make it worse, thanks. Mo0 [ talk ] 18:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Dargons flight. Olorin28 01:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Slight Object His edit count is excellent! He's a great contributor! However, I fail to see the maturity in him that an admin needs. He advertises less than savoury articles such as strip club & porn convention, which I personally take offense to. If he matures a bit, I'll fully support him. Spawn Man 05:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Dragons flight and Mo0. NSL E (T+C) 10:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Dragon flight. Blank Verse 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, as Dragonsflight. Katefan0 18:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, Per Dragonsflight, the explanation below doesn't help. --pgk( talk ) 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per Dragons flight. Answers to questions are also very short.  Jkelly 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per dragonsflight. Ashibaka tock 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose--Masssiveego 02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412  T 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral for now.  I would like the nominee to explain the intentionally misleading interactions with the Encyclopedia Brittanica employee referenced above, which I agree are not very becoming of an RFA candidate.  Hall Monitor 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like campaigning but since you request an explanation, I'll give you one. I tried to deceive the employee from Britannica headquarters because I believe he --or the office-- deserves scornful treatment.  I started tracking the user after he tried to hagiographize the Jacob Safra (Britannica owner) entry.  I wrote the article, so his attempt to manipulate the entry upset me.  Investigating the IP I found half a dozen cases of vandalism, again, I wasn't pleased but at least I figured I had the moral clarity now to pay him back.  So when he asked a suspiscious anonymous question -- he was insistent on getting an answer, hinting once at the possibility of a TOS breach -- I played a trick on him to make him look foolish because I did not like him personally and to subvert whatever he was aiming to do.  Lotsofissues 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is still unacceptable admin behavior. You should take the high road, even with vandals. "Playing tricks" because of "personal dislike" is quite dickish and undesirable in a Wikipedian, period. N (t/c) 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I don't know enough about Lotsofissues other work on wikipedia to make this a no, but I do find his interaction on the Encyclopedia Brittanica issue to be very disturbing. It's important to foster good will other businesses, and this interaction did the exact opposite.

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See information about Lotsofissues's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.



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. I prowl for copyright violations and deletion candidates, so I will complete the cleanup of what I formerly dropped off.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I've never tried to write a featured article. My work is found wherever cleanup and referencing is needed.  My editor niche is in improving the accuracy of what already exists.


 * 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. Only one user User:Mike Church has been a nuisance.  I ignore him now.  Thankfully the community reverts his vandalism on my page, so I don't have to engage him.

Optional questions:


 * 4. I would like to ask the candidate's view on Process is Important? DES (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.