Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LouriePieterse


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

LouriePieterse
Final: (16/29/3); closed by User:Kingturtle as unsuccessful at 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Hi. I am South African Wikipedian and I believe that I could be a good administrator, even though I am not for so long on Wikipedia. I love to help other people and I also have a keen interest in reverting vandalism and doing maintenance. Thank you! Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I mainly want to do even better in the reverting of vandalism. I would like to use my new tools with the recent changes to battle vandals even better than before. Secondly I wish to do maintenance work such as page protection, banning users, moving pages, ect.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I reckon my best contributions is the patrolling of the New Pages. I do this quite frequently and revert a lot of vandalism. I also work on areas that need attention, such as articles lacking references, clean up, ect. I also contributed to a lot of South African related articles.
 * 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: Yes, I've once had a personal attack. I reverted vandalism and the user took me on. I stayed calm an worked things out with the user.


 * Additional optional questions from Groomtech
 * 4. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
 * A: I believe each Wikipedian has his or her rights. Each one of us has the right to contribute without being personally attacked. One also has the right to complain against vandals who vandalise both articles and userpages.


 * Additional optional questions from Ottawa4ever (talk)
 * 5. An IP editor frequently posts a picture of a kitten on many users pages and appears to be spamming, and hasnt stopped. In fact all of his/her edits are of this picture being posted on user pages. Would you consider blocking this user? and if so for how long? would your answer be any different if the user were editing from an account?
 * A: No, I would first warn the user and politely ask him to please stop. Ill block him later, but not for long, because he would realise his mistake.


 * Additional optional questions from Tony1
 * 6. Will you agree to reveal your age, or at least your age-range?
 * A: Yes, I have no problem with that. I have turned this year 18, but I don't think one should see age as such big factor.


 * Question from  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 
 * 7 Hi Lourie, looking at this, what have you learned about editing on Wikipedia from the changes made to that article since you last edited it?
 * A: Hi WereSpielChequers. I am going to answer the question 100% honestly, I am not going to lookup anything in the guidelines. I've only mentioned the problems of the particular article. Firstly I've learned to use WikiCleaner to add internal links to the appropriate pages. A important thing I try to remember is, is to link a page to the correct page, not something that is ambiguous. It's very important not to add any information that promotes a company or institution, such as what I did. Another thing that I learned regarding creating articles is, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, don't add technical details or similar info. These articles is for the average person. Always add categories to a article.


 * Additional optional questions from Jeff G.
 * 8. Why did you not reveal your former identity Slapsnot (which only has 12 contributions in "all the other projects")?  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A: Hi Jeff. I have no problem mentioning my former identity. I've used the username Slapsnot for the most of my contributions. The only problem is, slapsnot can sometimes be offensive in Afrikaans. That's why I have changed my username, because I take Wikipedia very seriously. I find it a little difficult to change my username on the other projects, I'm still busy figuring it out. But in time I will change it also to LouriePieterse.  Lourie Pieterse  08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9. What do you plan to do about your errant uploads, specifically copyright violation File:ThreeMileIsland seen from bridge.jpg and orphan File:Retired SAAF Buccaneer.jpg?  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A: Regarding the copyright violation, I did post on the talk page of the image why I have uploaded the image. I also asked clarity on the subject, and I did mention that if I were wrong I would admit it. Unfortunately the page is now deleted. I've personally taken the Buccaneer photo, and in time I will add it to the appropriate articles.  Lourie Pieterse  08:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for LouriePieterse:
 * Edit summary usage for LouriePieterse can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/LouriePieterse before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted at the talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral support I do have some concerns though. You say you patrol New Pages yet you have only 90 deleted edits. Also your edits distribution by namespace is of concern; 30% in user space? Also, only 10 reports to AIV is concerning given that you want to work with vandal reversions. Triplestop (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Edits of concern:
 * G2 of a legitimate starting attempt at an article
 * A7 of a surname shared by 250 families
 * A7 of a region
 * A1 where the subject is identified
 * Comment: It looks like most of those 30% in the userspace (606 of 979 edits) were in User:LouriePieterse/Sandbox, so it looks like it was mainly preparations of content for the mainspace. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral Support Keep at it. Thanks for contributing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support WTHN?.-- Koji †  19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per User:A_Nobody in that candidate is an article creator with no blocks and no memorable negative interactions with me, i.e. per WP:AGF. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral Support I suspect this RfA is not going to get airborne, but I will check in here due to your excellent article creation skills and your good faith dedication to the project. Keep up the fine work -- you'll only get better! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, there's no reason not to support as far as I can see, even if it's unlikely this will pass. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC).
 * 6) Moral support Per ChildofMidnight, keep contributing in the same fashion and you'll eventually get the "tools".-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) As others have noted at WT:RFA this was very impressive. Another "moral support" but I'm sure we'll see you back here soon. I actually feel quite comfortable you're a pretty clued up editor but this needs to be better demonstrated through edits across the "expected areas" of Wikipedia. This is most certainly not a "not now" RFA but the links on that page will probably help as well. Think of this as a WP:LIKELYLATER comment. Pedro : Chat  19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Moral support per pedro.  Dloh  cierekim  21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Moral support also per Pedro.  UntilItSleeps  Public PC   17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Assuming good faith - this is another moral support moved from the Neutral section. Keep up your work and come back later. --Caspian blue 17:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Moral Support I've been very, very impressed by your attitude on this RfA. It's the correct attitude for an administrator to have, and I look forward to closing your next RfA as successful. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 08:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) "Moral" support - I'm very pleased with your overall behaviour in this RfA and I'm glad to see you're looking for feedback.  I believe that if you improve with the oppose comments you'll be fine as an admin in maybe three to six months time.  Good luck,  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  15:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Moral Support You've done a great job keeping your head up. Keep up the hard work. :-) Meetare Shappy  Cunkelfratz! 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support While I do think that now is not the time, I like your positive attitude. You do seem to be a promising editor, and if this RFA is unsuccessful, you do have potential to be a good editor. You really should try again in a few months time if that happens.  Gl ac ier   Wo lf   20:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Moral support I look forward to supporting once you've gained more experience in the areas you wish to work in.  Aditya  α ß 08:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Weak oppose, sorry. You've done quite a bit of good work here, in the form of both content creation and maintenance. However, judging by your talk page, your CSD work seems to be a bit shaky. The speedy deletion criteria are strict for a reason; a misguided deletion could easily drive a potential contributor off the project. Nonetheless, this might simply be a result of language issues, hence my weak support. Also, you have very little experience in the project space, and while I don't usually focus on namespace distribution, I'd like to see some more experience at AIV, UAA, AfD, etc. Good luck, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose due to lack of experience and the concerns raised about lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines regularly used and applied by admins. If you continue to work in the areas mentioned by Juliancolton, then I would likely support in several months. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose You are on the right track.You have rollback and have used it well and your commitment and dedication towards the project is good and would surely like you to be an admin.But not at this point As per Juliancolton.It is as per WP:NOTNOW.Please try again later and you would have my support.Sorry and Good luck for the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:NOTNOW applies really. Lourie is an experienced contributor. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose You don't have the experience I look for in a candidate. Sorry, – ( iMatthew  • talk ) at 18:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Regretful weak(ish) oppose. Sorry, but per your CSD mistakes which I've commented on on your talk page. You're a really great editor, seemingly willing to help, and you're certainly on the right track. Everybody makes mistakes when they're starting off (I did), and eventually you'll be much better for it. So don't let this put you off. You're just not ready at this stage, but I'd be more than happy to support you in the future, if you've improved. Please keep up your work around here - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry. The recent mistakes with speedy deletion force me to oppose. A mistaken speedy tag is quickly corrected, but if an admin makes a misguided deletion based on their understanding of the speedy deletion criteria, it takes another admin to correct and might never be corrected if nobody notices. (By the way, individual admins don't usually ban users, as you said in your answer to question 1. You probably meant blocking.) Jafeluv (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral Oppose You need some more contributions and per WP:NOTNOW. Tavix | Talk  21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I think you as a user are promising. I think in another 2 months maybe that a solid RFA may go through. But right now I dont think you are quite ready. Some more experience will help a great deal. And a good string of time on patrolling. You just got your rollback so it should help alot with seeing things and gaining expereince with policy. Per the response to number 5 I have a bit of feedback for you. I think its good that you are willing to engage in talks prior to blocking its important to establish whether the user actually realizes what he/she is doing. However a high level of disruption and potentially a disruptive only account needs to be dealt with very carefully. The primary goal of a block is to decide the best course to mitigate damage now and in the future and not to punish the user. The above answer is not so clear on this. That said I think you are well intentioned and will no doubt continue to improve, I have no doubt that you will one day be an admin at your current pace and a succesful one at that too :) Keep it up! Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Sorry, but there is a lack of experience. I do say though, keep up the good work, and possibly next time around, your RFA then will pass. Sorry. America69 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose LouriePieterse is clearly a good-faith editor but lacks the appropriate experience to be an administrator, and sometimes acts too quickly. This is not a desirable quality when one has the extra bit. Frank  |  talk  00:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - I also want to encourage user:LouriePieterse in his good-faith editing, and appreciate the overwhelming majority of his work on wikipedia. However, I too believe he lacks the experience I look for in an administrator, and have myself been the subject of his occasional careless tagging of articles before properly investigating, as he did with my creation of the Papillary eccrine adenoma stub. Again, I think overall user:LouriePieterse is a good editor, but needs some more experience before I can consider him for adminship. ---kilbad (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Seems like a good user, but hasn't really gotten his hands dirty enough. (aka not enough experience in areas where it would be very useful) Wizardman  00:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose mostly per Julian. - T'Shael,  Lord of the Vulcans  01:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Peter Damian (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, the user could use some more experience. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, per concerns about a general lack of experience. Nakon  08:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, mostly due to a lack of experience. I'll be willing to review a future candidacy in the future, however. One two three... 09:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Too soon, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose per Juliancolton.  S U L   14:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose-- Abce2 | Free Lemonade  Only 25 cents!  14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a rationale? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Per JC and also due to high Userspace edits. Pmlinediter   Talk 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose due to a lack of experience and understanding of how the project functions. Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose CSD problems and a general lack of experience. I do, however, like your answers to the questions. My advice is to do more work in the mainspace and perhaps seek guidance about the proper way to go about an RfA. I believe there are still a few admins coaches around.  Enigma msg  12:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose—Sorry, too young, insufficient experience. Two months I see above; no, I believe about a year. Please consider getting much more experience in content writing, and in observing how best-practice admins go about their duties. Good luck. Tony   (talk)  13:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, per Tony. I want you to know that I was also in your position a year ago. I want you to know that you should focus on bringing up your edit count, but don't just edit to increase the number. Come back here in 6 months, and see what the reviewers have to say. I would also like you to consider administrator coaching in the future, as today the backlog is really long. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask, as I know exactly how you might be feeling right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * N... no reason? ...oh gods... how horrible... Badger Drink (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC) (literally crying as he typed this)
 * 1) Oppose Manifestly inexperienced and immature candidate keeping open a can't-pass RFA for a so-far editor review. Copious guidelines and advice exists for aspiring admins (as pointed out by others above - all worth taking on board) which have been either ignored or not assimilated. Find articles to help, articles needing creation and areas you enjoy participating in, learn from issues arising from your direct involvement and forget about adminship the while. Suggestions and nominations will come if you've shown you're able.  Plutonium27 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose due to concerns over experience. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Too young, not enough experience, simple mistakes made. That, and self-nomination give no confidence that continued mistakes won't occur with the mop. Minkythecat (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral I think your content building is good, so why don't you come back here after several months with more works in admin space.--Caspian blue 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Basically, Caspian blue says it well. To be honest, I'm surprised that this hasn't been closed yet.  I certainly see a good future, and you're headed in the right direction, but I'd need to see more contributions to evaluate your knowledge of policy better before I could support. — Ched :  ?  07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lourie seems to be handling it pretty well and wants to make the most of this by not closing the RfA yet.  Jamie ☆ S93  21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a SNOW or NOTNOW candidate, so it remains open unless the candidate wishes to withdraw early.  Enigma msg  12:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Treat this as moral support and do remember to come back with lots of "experience" --  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * per above. Needs more experience and to bear some things in mind. My first article was deleted because I did not know not to save before I'd added content. One must always remember that the only rule many new users understand is WP:BEBOLD. We must 1) give new editors a chance to do their best to bring new articles into compliance with all our other rules, 2) bear in mind that articles about notable subjects may at first lack an assertion of significance-- the new editor may need help in doing so, 3) it is best to search for information with which to bring a new article into compliance then to delete it on sight as the new user is struggling to do something they've never done before, 4) if a new article does not meet any of the CSD categories, it may be better to PROD then to CSD. We need not be in a rush to delete. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned about final warning and reporting to WP:AIV after the IP has stopped. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, One of my unwritten conditions is at least a years experiance. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (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.