Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters


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

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
final (73/34/11) ending 05:11 24 January 2006 (UTC)

– Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (real name David Mertz) has been a Wikipedian since July 2004. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and is a columnist for several online publications. As a Wikipedian, he is an excellent and well rounded editor with a very solid understanding of Wikipedia content guidelines. In my experience, David manages to get his point across with good humor, impeccable logic and and a nice disposition to other editors. With 1,400 edits on the Wikipedia namespace alone, David has shown that he cares enough for the project to earn the sysop wings. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support He's already been in the fray several times(the first time I saw at Ward Churchill, but that's just the tip of the iceberg), and wouldn't run for admin because of something he said about another user, only to have that user basically say it wasn't any big deal and to forget the past We need more admins of Lulu's integrity. Karm  a  fist  05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Edit-conflict support, trustworthy user with plenty of experience. --TantalumT e lluride 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support 172 05:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support My support is strong.--MONGO 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. A good guy (and cute too - although the looming half-face in the background kind of creeps me out). ntennis 05:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. --Samuel Wantman 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Sarge Baldy 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I honestly thought Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was already an admin. We need more Lotus-Eaters as admins. J I P | Talk 09:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support good editor to have. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support – Phædriel  ♥ tell me - 10:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Some candidates are good, but this one's a Lulu! Grutness...wha?  11:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support: seeing him from time to time, including long back on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. --Bhadani 12:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. All interactions have been positive. -Colin Kimbrell 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (Clarification: All interactions with me, personally.  I know there's some mildly sketchy stuff from early last year, but improved recent conduct effectively cancels it out.)-Colin Kimbrell 04:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17)  ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 14:56Z 
 * 19) Support. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support but please use your edit summaries more. I realize its kind of a trivial thing, but it doesn't take that much more effort to put *something* there to describe your actions.  All other aspects of my interactions with you have been positive. :) --Syrthiss 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Never hurts to be supportive--Piedras grandes 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong Support for a fellow alumnus, with whom I share a physical resemblance. Oh, he also happens to be brilliant. :) Xoloz 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) King of All the Franks 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) --Jaranda wat's sup 23:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. I know Lulu as an editor who cares about our policies, particularly NOR and V, and I believe he'll make a fine and thoughtful admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Changed from oppose. User has convinced me that his past issues are just that: past issues. With that out of the way, I support. Voice of  All T 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support good candidate --rogerd 05:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Adminship is no big deal, and I'll take him on his word that he'll not engage in any more dubious behavior. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 09:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, I found those diffs in the oppose-section troubling until I realized that they are eight months old. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mine aren't, but hey, who really cares? CJK 14:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true, yours are newer. But my initial vote to oppose was based on the diffs by Grue and Starblind, and those are pretty old. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, looks experienced enough to be an admin. --Terence Ong 12:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Thryduulf 13:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. If this RFA had been six months ago, I would have said no way. Now Lulu has shown that he can be an asset to the Wikipedai and should be a good admin. Blank Verse 15:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support We had our run in, but since then I've seen nothing but good editing. [[Sam Korn ]] 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Assume good faith and Support. Well-intentioned user who is a valuable asset to Wikipedia. Please use edit summaries on all edits though.--Alhutch 17:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Good editor. Although I am against users editing their own bios, I don't think this is enough for an oppose vote. Rhobite 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Sean|Bla ck 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Give the user the benefit of the doubt. The opposition so far lists only old/unimportant incidents. &mdash; 0918BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-18 23:32
 * 9) support good user. plus, we need more people with actual expertise in positions of authority.  also, i am quite unpersuaded by opposition based on self-article.  why shouldn't he edit an article about himself?  no one has quarreled with the content of those edits.  it would be one thing if the article were vanity, but it's been through afd & survived.  should admins never edit articles they are well-informed about, care about, & have personal views about? show me one who doesn't. Derex 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * support -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose, see my rationale below. -- Run e  Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) support -- Gaurav1146 07:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: Give him the key to the executive washroom. Or, more aptly, the port-a-john. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I am familliar with LOTLE's work on articles such as Biology and sexual orientation and Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation where we have both been active contributors. He has shown himself to be a remarkably sane and useful contributor in a subject area where sensitivity and level-headedness are at a premium.  Pete.Hurd 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support : Lulu is an honest Wikipedian of some experience and intellect. Has good knowledge of Wikipedia and what would be required of him as an admin. He does very well striving for balance and NPOV in articles- an excellent candidate. --  max rspct  leave a message  15:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Strikes me as very unlikely to do anything wacky with admin tools.  Jkelly 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Don't know this editor, but I trust the nominator and others that have. Reading about the silly reasons of some of the oppose votes, gives me confidence that this is actually a good editor. Great will be the day that RfA's will stop being used to "get back" at editors that challenged you. Vote for the benefit of Wikipedia, not for the benefit of your politics. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. An experienced, trustworthy user. He's had disagreements with people - many of whom are signing oppose votes below - but from what I've seen he's always been civil and reasonable in these disagreements.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review the talk pages for the two Ward Churchill articles. Lulu has repeatedly made personal attacks against me, refused to negotiate, and refused to verify his own POV-inspired errors when challenged.Pokey5945 20:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reviewed them. It looks like Lulu is doing his best to deal with an unbending POV warrior (you). My support stands.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, how did you determine that I am the POV warrior and that Lulu is NPOV? I don't think that Lulu's repeated labeling of me as POV makes it so. I think that such mud-slinging is Lulu's own style of POV-mongering. If you're seriously interested in the issue, I will be happy to engage you in discussion and demonstrate how Lulu's editing fails to meet NPOV on the Churchill issue. Finally, even if it were true that I have failed to achieve NPOV, would that justify Lulu's refusal to negotiate in good faith, his refusal to verify his edits when challenged, and his habitual use of ad hominem?Pokey5945 22:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) SUPPORT yes he had many many months ago some issues, but nowadays he's doing a great job, isn't he? Learning about your own mistakes is always a good thing. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Opposing an adminstrative candidate because you disagree with him is lame. Lulu seemed more reasonable than most in disputes. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Slogged through the Ward Churchill talk pages, and he seems to have managed to engage without running out of the room screaming, which is more than I could probably say for myself. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) My default position on any RfA is "strong oppose". I've looked hard, and I find the allegations regarding Castro and POV to be nonsensical.  The objections regarding AUTO are within the realm of rationality, but the response is clear and cogent, if slightly sharp.  LOTLE can be curt, his comments on talk pages can be quite frank, and he has exhibited bad behavior.  I was unable to find indication that we was either unaware of this or doing anything other than attempting to improve.  Be good, and remember that admin powers should be used as nicely and politely as posible. Support -  brenneman (t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Oppose. While I can't remember the primary reason I wanted to oppose, while looking through the contribs, I often saw lots of small edits on the same article. Also, this edit summary was a bit questionable. Of course, I myself have never done either of these things... *trailing off weakly* --SarekOfVulcan 07:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC) I don't like that vote any more. I did some more history reading, and changed my mind. Support --SarekOfVulcan 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I have several concerns (see the oppose votes), but they are over-ruled by the need for more expert-level sysops on the English wikipedia and the fact that I do not see this user abusing the buttons. Youngamerican 17:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support After being contacted by Lulu and reading more of Lulu's comments and responses on all of this, I am more confortable with the interactions this editor has with the Wikipedia community. Seems to be a really good editor who is willing to work hard on controversial articles.--Alabamaboy 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. We can always do with more IBM guys. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:large;color:#FF0000;">haz</b> (user talk) 21:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Seems to be the sort of admin. Wikipedia needs. **Armeisen 05:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, definitely. He brings a strong commitment to accuracy that greatly benefits Wikipedia. His ability and willingness to confront POV extremists is also very valuable. —Sesel 06:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support, He recently made stellar and much need corrections to the once unwieldy "List of Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual People" list and demonstrated a strong anti-NPOV stance in the category as well as helping to enforce references and citations. ExRat 06:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, I've been mulling this one over for a few days now, expecting there to be some controversy. Having read through the rest of the RFA I've some doubts, but on balance I support. --pgk( talk ) 10:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Mark1 10:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support -- Megamix? 12:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)  Already voted... see number 17 above. ;-) -- LV  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose only because he created an article about himself, which I think should never be done. --Pierremenard 15:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Neutral. User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters agrees it was a mistake, so my concerns are satisfied. --Pierremenard 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Support. Took a detailed look at user's edits and many were quite useful and balanced. --Pierremenard 16:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support,a worthy candidate to assume adminship.--Jayanthv86 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)•User talk:Jayanthv86•Special:Contributions/Jayanthv86
 * 2) Strong support. Lulu has shown himself to be knowledgable and professional.  -Seth Mahoney 20:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) support as per many of the opposes... William M. Connolley 23:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support &mdash; Saravask 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Although I've had disagreements with David, it's clear that he is committed to the project and I believe he would only use sysop powers in ways beneficial to the project, jguk 09:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Level-headed and able to see many sides. -- Danny Yee 10:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. My interations with him have been positive. Surely he meets the very low bar that we have set for administrator privileges. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. — FireFox • T • 18:56, 23 January 2006 
 * 10) Weak support. I'm worried by the many oppose votes and the second RfC, but think on balance he's worth supporting for admin.-gadfium 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, despite the fact that he looks a bit like my ex-boss from IBM. :-) bogdan 23:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support as I think this user has become a fine, well-rounded and knowledgeable wikipedian who'd make good use of the tools. Also, CDThieme's Oppose rationale clinches it for me. Bishonen | talk 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Oppose


 * 1) Oppose I can't in good judgment support someone like this--Piedras grandes 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm asking this user on their talk page to clarify which of their sup/opp votes they intended to place. --Syrthiss 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose doesn't know how to use preview, edited his own vanity article, violated civility several times, had a RfC against him, which lists some other reasons why this user should not be an admin .  Grue   17:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit that this stuff is quite old, but the thing is, I never encountered this user since then so I can't say if he became better. The latest contributions that I saw do not convince me that this user will benefit from admin powers (no project participiation, no vandal fighting and so on).  Grue   16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Grue, especially the vanity page part. I also find user page vandalism a troubling quality in a possible admin. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my own rollback after 3 minutes: (yeah, it was a childish edit back in April 2005, at the height of annoyance, but I fixed it immediately). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
 * 1) Strong oppose per Grue and Starblind. freestylefrappe 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose No user that pushes a POV in articles that Cuba under Fidel Castro has had free elections since 1976 [ and then proceeds to slanders me unjustly about it will ever get my vote. In addition, his assertion that Wikipedia can reference itself is disturbing . Note: this was in the past 18 days. [[User:CJK|CJK]] 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) *That last one seems to be misunderstanding the context. I believe that LOTLE was refering to discussion where the WP:CITEing for an item in a list would go in the parent article, and that the items in a list did not then have to duplicate this citation.  This would, in fact, be strengthening the requirements for external verification. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  05:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) **The "parent" article was vandalized a few days prior to this (I informed him, but was ignored), and even if it wasn't, an administrator should be required to actually have some common sense (well, he does, he was just trying to be difficult in order to bait me into 3RR ). It was also a pick and choose deal: Did LOTLE look in Cuba, History of Cuba, and Fidel Castro even though more users worked on those? No. There is no citation in the article in question besides the Cuban government (actually, there was before it got removed by him). CJK 14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. 1400 edits in one year and a half. User is not active enough in my opinion.[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry, that was the result of an unfortunate instance misreading at the nomination paragraph. However, I'm still opposing, as I think the user is not WP:CIVIL enough (see Starblind's comments).[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing  R  21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look lower and you'll see his edits far surpass the 7,000 mark...that 1,400 is to Project space.--MONGO 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for that. I had already spotted that myself but thanks for your attempt to increase my awareness.[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Per above, let time amend.  Voice of  All T 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, to be more clear, my main issue is just the timimg after the RfC, vanity, vandalism issues. I have not seen anything to make me believe that he edits with POV or has civility issues. The edit count seems fine to me as well. I just want more time after the other issues before supporting. Maybe I might change my vote if convinced otherwise (in the interest of fairness on RfA), right now I will leave it at weak oppose. Voice of  All T 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How long would you want to see? All the issues mentioned in the oppose votes are 9 months old. I mention below that I sort of hold to a six-month standard; but do you think it needs to be an entire year? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you point. One less oppose. Voice of  All T 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Grue & Starblind. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)  Wait a second, those diffs are from last may. Give a guy some credit in improving himself in eight months. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  11:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd support someone like you but the vanity editing caught me. NSL E (T+C) 00:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Daniel Brandt and Seigenthaler, et. al., I'm of the view that editing your own page is not the best thing to do (I was even before, but all the more strongly now). This vote is nothing personal, but I'm a firm believer in WP:AUTO (and would revert anyone else editing their own article). However, upon further investigation, you have not edited your own article since October. Keep that up, and if you can stay away from your article for six months (March), I'd be glad to support. NSL E (T+C) 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well, if WP:AUTO is the pressing issue, that's that. Most of the Wikimedia Foundation board would be ruled out on this basis.  I do comment on this to NSL at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed. NSL E (T+C) 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongish Oppose Interactions show he doesn't completely understand Wikipedia and its policies. <font color="#006666">Bratsche <font color="#FF6600">talk 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Grue & Starblind. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Grue. I'd also like to see the edit summary higher (especially minor edits). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: it just is not a good practice for a user to be so active in editing the page about himself. Jonathunder 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If so, you'd better talk to this Jimbo Wales guy, he's got a real problem with that, because like Lulu, he's also a nice guy, but has made mistakes in the past, particularly in regards to vanity editing. Here's the tip of the iceberg, I can send some more diffs if you'd like. , , , , , Oh, here's my favorite, he asks the person who edited prior to him to "consult with him personally" before changing it again.  Karm  a  fist  04:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTO is a well-written, nuanced guideline which does permit some editing of one's bio article, which covers Jimbo's edits, so far as I can see. What concerns me is that this nominee seems to dismiss the guideline altogether, calling it "only" a guideline and even a "really bad rule". Jonathunder 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling it "only a guideline and a really bad rule"(which you'll have to show me the diff on, since I showed you diffs above), is far superior to thinking it's marvelous and then breaking it all the time. Here's a quote right from the top of WP:AUTO, from this exact second...
 * "It is a social faux pas to write about yourself", according to Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder.
 * Jonathunder, would you like to send over some more empty rhetoric and shallow Jimbo worship or can we agree that your reasoning is specious and that WP:AUTO is likely the most ignored "rule" on WP? Jimbo, like Lulu, is a nice guy, and Jimbo like Lulu, has his faults that are overshadowed by his tremendous talents. Oh yeah, Jeff Merkey attempted to sue as well. Karm  a  fist  03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Merkey has not brought either Jimbo or me to court, just blustered about doing so; the nice upshot was to get a very pleasant (and somewhat surprising) phone call from Wales discussing the libelous (but utterly silly) comments Merkey has on Merkeylaw.com. In any case, WP:AUTO really is a guideline, not a policy; and it really is "violated" by Wales, along with the rest of the Wikimedia board, in exactly the same way that I "violated" it.  And indeed, none of them are currently up for RfA. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. POV pusher and fighter against consensus in CFD. He doesn't deserve admin powers. Note: This is one of a few users in 2 years I'm opposing. --Darwinek 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Talk:Bob Dylan interactions with me not good. He spent a lot of time running down another editor though I asked him repeatedly to stick to the issues.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I have had no direct interactions with this user but some of his responses on the RfC lead me to question his composure when under pressure. Also, (IMHO) he seems a little over-eager to confront any opposing voters on their talk page, this makes him seem a bit too pushy but also makes me wonder whether he views adminship as 'no big deal'. TigerShark 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above issues. Seems to confront too many people too often for my tastes.--Alabamaboy 16:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to support (see comments there).--Alabamaboy 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose This person routinely violates WP by habitually engaging in ad hominem personal attacks, making extreme POV edits, and refusing to provide verification for his edits when he is challenged. See his constant personal attacks against me in the Ward Churchill talk page over the past few months. Also see the Ward Churchill: Allegations talk page. (Lulu refactored the Churchill article to exile the critical stuff into a separate article, as part of his POV-mongering.) He admits to being a strong Churchill supporter, and edits with a strong pro-Churchill POV. He refuses to negotiate in good faith, and instead stoops to ad hominem, and accuses people who disagree with him of being a "POV warrior." This is the last type of person you would ever want to have any administrative power at all.Pokey5945 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above, though generally a good editor on the basis of the contributions I've happened to see. I'm less concerned about the autobio issue as such (though it's a pretty blatant instance in terms of self-creation, frequency and total text of edits, marginal nature of notability, and vocalness to keep it) in that it's not a horrible article in and of itself, as with the rationalisations of it.  These seem to involve minimisation, implied equivalency with people whose WP:AUTO contributions are far more minor (and aren't currently nominated, more to the point), and disregard for a guideline that has considerable community consensus.  And, with the lack of any undertaking to refrain from continuing to act in the same way.  Extend such a patterm to, say, the implementation of deletion or blocking, and that would be altogether more serious.  Alai 20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose RfC within the last 12 months. If he can go for a year without getting an RfC, a WP:AUTO complaint, or eleciting strong opposition (even from those who he disagrees with), give him a mop. Until then, I'm worried about giving hm a stick to go with the carrot. Ronabop 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per all the quoted reasons above. RfC, vandalism, vanity, WP:CIVIL.  Recognise that he's been behaving a lot more recently, so try again in a few months.  Would have to recuse himself from working on the David Mertz article, entirely, though.  No problems with his actual editing (the PoV complaints are a bunch of garbage). Proto t c 12:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose as I don't think creating an article about himself was a good idea. Thumbelina
 * 6) Oppose as mostly per Grue and Starblind. No shortage of admin candidates with much less controversy. - Dharmabum420 00:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per pthers and for campaigning for changed votes. I don't really care for that. Sorry. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on Lulu's candidacy, since I haven't heard much of this user before, but I just want to know: What's wrong with that diff? It's one thing to say "Please please please reconsider your vote" without explaining anything. It's another to clarify valid problems raised, even if a clarification has already been made in the RfA. I do it all the time with FAC -- when a problem has been addressed, I notify the objector of the change both on his/her user talk and on the FAC subpage. It's not campaigning -- it's a clarification. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think I would have a problem with asking maybe one or two people for an explanation, but an abundance of campaigning blew it for me... See             and  for just a selection of Lulu seeking "clarification". I just don't care for it. That, and some of the other opposition, leads me to a Strong Oppose.-- LV  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  01:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Copying and pasting the same form message to a dozen users' pages does seem overkill to me, but in RfA, it's not unrare to see a similar number of people opposing for the same reason. On FAC, when there are multiple objectors, it's not "campaigning" to notify all of them of something they might need to know. I also note that in more than a few cases, Lulu personalised his message, indicating he isn't blindly copying and pasting the same message to different people's user talk pages, even if they have different objections. I'm not passing judgement on any of this -- it's just an issue I take interest in. Johnleemk | Talk 01:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, while there was some copying between some of these, for the most part they are individualized to the comment made by the individual voter. The claim that this is a "selection" seems to insinuate something snide (it's possible Lord Voldemort missed one, but it's not a "tip of the iceberg" thing).  I was not trying to hide anything about contacting oppose voters whom I felt may not have evaluated my recent history (i.e. last 6+ months), or I would have emailed instead of providing diffs (I did not do this).  I also did not contact anyone who stated a specific oppose reason, rather than a sort of general "me too" which I felt was more of a "where there's smoke, there's fire" approach that I believe is not good for RfA votes.  To me, these contacts are exactly the sort of continuation of good editing cooperation that I find desirable, and will continue whether or not promoted to admin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Lulu, I am sorry, I didn't mean anything snide by that comment. I simply meant that there were other contacts to your RfA opposers that I did not grab the diffs for. Like I said before, I wouldn't have had an issue with it if it were one or two users being asked for clarification, but this was a dozen or so. Also, they had gotten to the point where you were asking people to change their votes. Not seeking clarification, but more, as I saw it, out of desperation. I understand you want to be an Admin, but many of us in the oppose section have stated that we could support in the future, just not at this moment-in-time. Just keep up the good work, and I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors next time. Again, my apologies if I came off as snide. That was my mistake. See you around, my friend. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  03:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As one of those whom Lulu came and asked to reconsider my vote, I can tell you why I don't really like the campaigning; I found it a little insulting. It implied that I hadn't put any thought into my vote. I had other reasons other than Grue and Starblind's diffs for my vote, but felt it unnecessary to bring them up in the RfA, as I was just wanted to cast my vote, not get into a paragraphs-long defense of it. That's not to say that Lulu's message on my talk page wasn't polite and courteous, it just carried the implication that my vote was venal. If people just saying "me too" is a chronic problem in RfA's, then it's the system that needs to be addressed, not the individual voters. - dharmabum (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I had supported this nomination originally, and I really want to make clear that I have nothing against the user. However I have a zero-tolerance policy against campaigning and/or persuading other users to get votes changed. The diff by LV killed it for me. I'm sorry. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral. -- Run e  Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I think Lulu falls short of what I would hope for in an administrator in terms of his lack of civility and inability (or disinclination) to work with others in achieving consensus. Experience with his "list" project suggests he prefers imposing his own opinions as fiats. - Outerlimits 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Involved in dispute on Talk:List of Jewish jurists where he criticised editors in an extremely uncivil way for using the Jewish Year Book as a source describing it as "sectarian" and "craptastic"  even though he self admittedly knew nothing about it, then refused to take part in mediation. Arniep 02:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Arnie, in fairness, Lulu didn't refuse to take part in mediation. There was no credible request for mediation, because by the time something approaching a request was made (but with no issues specified), the only two issues the mediation could have dealt with had already been agreed, and those involved against Lulu were judged by four members of the arbcom to be sock puppet accounts, so the whole incident was rather confusing. Lulu was probably right to stay out of it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per the evidence above about civility and bias in editing. I don't think David contributes for the right reasons, and would not improve WP as an admin. --John Hubbard 15:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, as per several of the comments above, including Arniep. Vulturell 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose, sorry, but the already mentioned Style Wars are still too fresh for me. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per many of the supports. CDThieme 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, sorry. kjetil_r 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Outerlimits and ArnieP. His attitude as shown for example on Talk:List of Jewish jurists and his categorical refusal to consider mediation are not appropriate for an administrator. - RachelBrown 09:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to bureaucrat: The RachelBrown account has not edited since December 9 when it was confirmed by four members of the arbcom to be running three sock puppet accounts, one of which was allegedly used to influence voting on AfD. The only reason no further action was taken is that RachelBrown announced she was leaving Wikipedia. Since then s/he has returned only to vote in this and the arbcom elections. If this vote ends up being decisive, I ask that you consider discounting it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Sigh, firm oppose based on apparent intransigence to other's points of view, incivility and campaigning by self and others. This is not a beauty contest, but rather what should be best for the encyclopedia. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Grue and Starblind. Sarah Ewart 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, unfortunately, per many above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Lulu uses ad hominem attacks first and rational disagreement second. I know because he did it five minutes ago.--Zaorish 02:31, 24 January 2006
 * 5) Oppose. I've been the target of a long-running string of spurious personal attacks from this user ever since I wouldn't going along with a position he pushed. Anybody who thinks "I almost certainly know more than you do" is appropriate to use in a dispute here  quite plainly shouldn't shouldn't have admin authority. Monicasdude 04:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... that was more than 5 months ago. It might be time to forgive and forget. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  04:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It began more than 5 months ago, and he's never stopped. For example, last month he posted insulting comments about me and restored text I'd deleted which claimed musician Lowell George had written songs about events that took place after George had died; only three days ago he called me "maniacal" for deleting a discussion (in the Bob Dylan article) about albums that didn't exist. Monicasdude 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I prefer not to give reasons because I don't want to be bickered with by the candidate, which bickering, curiously enough, is one of the reasons for opposing him. Grace Note 05:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) More edit summaries please. They are helpful to your fellow contributor on whose watchlist or recent changes list you may happen to pop up. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I like his contributions to the article space but I have a memory of the styles and honorific prefixes debate from last summer which ended up in a series of revert wars. I don't hold that against LLOTLE per se but when his conduct was questioned in an RFC, he responded in a somewhat frivolous way .  He hasn't been involved in serious disputes since then but it gives me cause for concern that he lacks an essential quantity in an admin - willingness to accept that one has made a mistake. David | Talk 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nuetral for now. Edit sums are a concern, and I will weigh the answer to question #8. Jonathunder 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) --Signed by  Chazz - ''Responses to (responses). @ 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Sorry to bring up ancient history, but I knew I associated this editor's name with an old RFA and I came up with it--Requests for adminship/ScottyBoy900Q.  At that RFA, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, in fiercely opposing ScottyBoy900Q said, "FWIW, I wouldn't make a good admin either; largely for the same reasons ScottyBoy900Q wouldn't—but then, I'm not nominated, and wouldn't accept if I was :-)."  (See responses to Oppose vote #4 for context).  I think I understand what he meant--he meant that he is a person who must insist on a point he feels to be right, and that an administrator must be willing to walk away and let others resolve a situation.  I take him at his word.  Chick Bowen 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I can't seem to vote support at the time. I'm leaning towards oppose based on the facts complied above in the oppose section. — M o e   ε  01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) NSL E (T+C) 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I just can't support someone who creates a vanity article, vandalizes userpages, and issues strong personal attacks. And the RfC... -Greg Asche (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC
 * 6) Neutral - I have spent a good deal of time reading the RFC and various other user pages, talk pages, etc. in trying to decide how to vote. I've decided to vote neutral as I do have concerns over the condescending nature of some of Lulu’s interactions with other issues, and I don’t feel that an admin behave in that nature. Even recent interactions show this same condescending nature. Sue Anne 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral Skimpy on the edit summaries and some questions....like above comments.  Pschemp | Talk 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. As a then newbie, I followed the infamous "Style Wars", and was appalled at the behaviour of LotLE (among others, it must be said), as well as his contemptuous attitude to the RfC process. Since then, our paths haven't crossed, and I'm quite prepared to believe that he's a reformed character, but I just think it needs longer (as per Ronabop and others) before giving him admin powers. Vilcxjo 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) On further reflection, my opposition was based on comparatively ancient history. Lulu seems to have done a lot of good stuff more recently. I'd still have preferred it to have been longer since the problematic period, but the timing of this RfA was not of his choosing so can't be held against him. I also note that some of those who locked horns with him over the Style Wars are now supporters. Can't go that far, I'm afraid, but changing to Neutral. Vilcxjo 16:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral. For rationale follow my exchange with Lulu in our talk pages. -- Run e  Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) Comment: There seems to be an awful lot of counter-campaigning being done in the Oppose section by friends (?) of the nominee. That puts an odd taste in my mouth; will probably come back later to vote. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the level of countercampaigning here to actually be substatially less than that seen on other nominations. There actually seem to be many politically opposed voices that are voting oppose based on politics. As further notes, I wondered myself if I had an article about me here, how I would respond to inaccurate information or if I should elaborate on myself to protect it from being deleted, and I understand many people's attitude about WP:AUTO. In all liklihood, I would have done the same thing Lulu has done...enhance the article with factual information that can be verified. The second time his article was nominated for deletion, the nominator deliberately went and solicited votes from those that had voted to deleted it the first time around...that's lousy. I see nothing about Lulu's edit history in the article about him to indicate to me that he has stretched the truth, or pushed a POV in any way. Lulu works on articles that oftentimes are going to have a lot of trolls and POV warriors in opposition and in almost every single circumstance, he has worked to ensure that these articles do indeed support WP:NPOV. Argumentative style in conversation is good to a degree so long as the arguements remain factual and polite for the most part, and I see that Lulu has indeed done this...much better than most would. This vote is to determine if Lulu will 1). be an asset as an administrator and, 2). to determine if Lulu will abuse admin tools...in both circumstances, I see no strong evidence that these points will be violated. He does not behave rashly, so as far as blocking those he is in oppostion to, protecting pages he is in dispute on or closing out deletions without following concensus, I have complete faith he will not do these things. This is the educated opinion from one who previously had some rather heated debates with Lulu.--MONGO 22:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) lots of people are worried about the bio article. i'm not.  here's why.  LOTLE created that a long time ago when he saw references to himself added by others in articles created by others.  he didn't write it, rather he copied it from a p.d. writeup by someone else.  essentially filling in a red-link.  yes, it was inexperienced in wikipedia culture, but that was then. since then he has edited for factual accuracy, which is allowed under WP:AUTO.  at any rate, what does this have to do with whether he might abuse adminship? Derex 23:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit summary usage: 76% for major edits and 11% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See information about Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

Questions for the candidate
 * FWIW, I definitely encourage voters to look at CJK's diffs. I think that everything he suggests as irresponsible by me is, in fact, some of the most professional editing I've done; and especially shows my ability to deal with POV-warriors in a non-escalatory way. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This user seems to have a strange definition of "professional editing" and "non-escalation". I don't remember any professionals who have put forward the theory that there have been free elections in Cuba, but perhaps I'm missing something. I give up. No one seems to care that this user has pretty much vandalized that article while completely evading discussion on it. CJK 16:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the talk page history for Ward Churchill indicates that Lulu has discussed the article contents...ad nauseum --MONGO 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude... I don't have a dispute there.
 * The same high level of participation is apparent by Lulu in the talk page for List of dictators --MONGO 04:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not with me. Don't see what that has to do with anything. Did you even look at the diffs? CJK 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You claim that he wasn't discussing...my diffs prove otherwise. What are you talking about?--MONGO 02:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I even said that, but he was discussing other disputes, not the one in question. Here is the link to the dispute in question . There is no response towards me after January 1. I know I am fighting a losing battle here. I just don't think its that hard to see that List of Dictators was basically vandalized byt this user at that time. And the blame is placed on me. CJK 14:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for a response from either Radiant or LOTLE as to why my evidence is wrong or irrelevant. CJK 18:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath waiting for Lulu to own up. On the Ward Churchill articles, Lulu's habit is to accuse others of POV-mongering whenever he is challenged to verify one of his own POV edits. I've caught him in a number of factual errors, and he has yet to even try to verify one of them, much less admit his error.Pokey5945 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't actually expecting a response fron Lulu, just being polite, though I hope a response from someone (anyone?) can clear this up. I have more links for evidence than all of the other "oppose" guys here combined. CJK 21:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting. And I am very patient. CJK 02:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting from a response from someone regarding the flaws in my evidence, not some claim based on edits to talk pages. CJK 20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This not the page for discussing specific articles. Take it to the proper talk page. &mdash; <font color="#444444">0918<font color="#222222">BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-21 16:58
 * So what you are saying, we are not allowed to criticize the conduct of people on other articles? CJK 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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:

0. I'm moderately surprised at the nomination. I had intended to let someone who has asked me about it nominate me, maybe in another month or so. But since Jossi nominated, I'll accept the nomination. My caveat is that in opposing the nomination of User:MONGO (who has since proved an excellent administrator, and whom I've worked with productively), I stated a standard of "six months of unblemished behavior"... in my own opinion, I made a few intemperate comments last August, that I think didn't show my best face. So this slightly jumps the gun on my own standard.

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.


 * My editing has been somewhat accidental in the sense that I have latched on to various topics simply because I recognize articles (or sets of related ones) can be made better. I tend to believe that this attitude makes for overall better editorship than does coming in with a strong interest in one particular topic.  The pages I edit are ones where I have a commitment to the quality of the article rather than to the importance of topic (or to some particular approach to the topic).  Of course, there are some things I have some background knowledge about, and there is some usefulness of utilizing that knowledge.


 * As an admin, I'd be largely interested in doing what editors think I might be most useful for; which probably largely amounts to informal mediation on topics, and generally cooling tempers and guiding conflicts towards mutually agreeable NPOV contents. To this end, having the option of using the various admin capabilities (page protection, semi-protection, temporary blocks for egregious behavior, etc) provides a bit of a stick to go with the carrot of article improvement; obviously, such formal mechanisms need be used parsimoniously though.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?


 * Recently especially, I think I've accomplished quite a bit in improving the evidentiary standards of a number of lists I've worked with. I start with a certain suspicion of lists and categories, since they are sometimes used for "commentary by alleged commonality"; but in the best case, lists and categories can provide useful navigation... the key is good annotation of included items, slavish conformance to evidentiary suspiciousness, and clear membership criteria.

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?


 * I've sometimes been annoyed by what I perceive as POV-mongering and other behavior where editors put themselves ahead of the good of articles. I've learned over the last several months to rely on trying to get outside neutral editors involved rather than further a direct conflict.  Initially, I insist on the various WP guidelines and policies; but at a certain point I recognize that my own persona and history can get in the way of bringing other editors to a full understanding of neutrality and verifiability, and know when to step aside to cooperate with third parties... and symmetrically, when to step in as such a third party to soothe other editors' conflicts.

4. Further rambling.


 * I decided to look at just how much editing I've done.

Username              Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters Total edits           7286 Image uploads         28 (23 cur, 5 old) Distinct pages edited 1007 Edits/page (avg)      7.24 Deleted edits         74 (browse) First edit            2004-07-12 03:17:27 Edits by namespace Namespace   Edits Articles    2694 Talk        1804 User         220 User talk    943 Project      964 Project talk 503 Image         19 Image talk     2 Template       9 Template talk 20 Category      52 Category talk 56

5. Your user name is very memorable. How did you choose it and what is its significance?


 * How to make this (relatively) short? The name dates from about 1994, used on Usenet on mailing list discussions. "Lulu" is chosen as a "frivolous" or "disreputable sounding name (in reference to a literary tradition including Wedekind's Lulu plays; and also several movies like Wild at Heart and Something Wild).  Also usually perceived as a woman's name.  In both respects it plays against a usual assumption of "discursive authority", which has aspects of both sexism and other hierarchical status markers.  It's an "anti-authority" name.  But then, it's also close to "Lula", whom I admired since his first campaign (and I am so pleased is now prez of a place I've never been to, but seems fascinating).


 * The "Lotus-Eaters" is a reference to Homer's Oddyssey, and the draw of sombulescent animality. But it's by way of Horkheimer and Adorno's analysis of Homer marking the transition to modernity (it's a funny thing to claim, if you think about it... but y'know, those Freudo-Marxists are funny sorts).  It sort of continues the same meme as the "Lulu" part.


 * Like any European worth his/her salt, I have heard of Homer's Odyssey and basically know what it's all about. But I have never read it. Who or what are the Lotus-Eaters? Do they actually eat lotuses? <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 10:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They do eat lotuses in the Oddyssey, but it seems to be more of a metaphor for opium. Perhaps somewhere in 3000 years "poppy" got mistranslated or conflated as "lotus". I don't read classical Greek though (nor modern)... I know a word here or there, and the alphabet, but you can't help that studying philosophy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

6. Are you familiar with WP:AN and WP:AN/I? Have you participated in those discussions in the past and do you plan to in the future? What about Wikiprojects and administravia?


 * I have participated a bit already, but only transiently. I think if promoted to admin I will participate more.  I'm not quite certain of all the formal rules, but it felt like it was improper to opine too much in the administrators' noticeboard without being an admin myself, so I only passed by mostly.


 * Along with Jossi, I am principle author of the recent proposed guideline Lists in Wikipedia (WP:LISTS). I believe that if this is adopted formally, it will go a long way towards improving the conformance of lists with WP policy, where many editors have been unclear on the application of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to lists.

7. Why so many small edits?


 * Not wishing to influence SarekOfVulcan's vote, or anyone else's unduly, I think one thing he comments on is subject to rather straightforward clarification. I find WP servers often to be flakey, and for edit conflicts to arise fairly frequently.  Therefore, I tend to save quite frequently during an editing session simply to avoid losing partial edits.  Even if I know I intend to change 10 sentences, I will often make each of the ten changes one-by-one, saving at each step.  Moreover, inasmuch as I do make edit comments (Oleg Alexandrov is probably right that I should be more consistent on this), this allows me to document each of those hypothetical 10 changes, in case some other editor likes 9 of them, but dislikes one.

8. You have edited the article on yourself. What is your view on such practices, and what do you have to say to those who object to it as a very bad thing? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 13:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I have edited the article on myself, though entirely pretty minor edits rather than adding any substantial content (most recently on Oct 11, 2005; but I do not think it would be improper in any way to edit later, while obeying WP:NOR and WP:NPOV). As well, I created the article Danny Yee of an excellent Wikipedian who also edited his own article subsequently.  And I created an article on my colleague Alan Soble, for example, who is not a Wikipedian, but who made an anonymous edit or two to his own article.


 * In general, I feel the anti-autobiography rule is drastically overused, or at any rate is given way too much unreflective weight by some editors. My bio, for example, survived a second AfD where prettty much the entirety of the "delete" argument consisted of "the person edited his article" (no allegation of doing so destructrively or in a POV fashion, nor of lack of notability, just edited at all).  People tend to know things about their own biography; and many people know how to write in a neutral fashion.  We do, after all, tend to write our academic bios, book cover blurbs, and whatnot.


 * On the other hand, I am also the editor who first wrestled Jeffrey Vernon Merkey out of its POV-morass that had resulted from rampant POV-mongering and flat-out invention by its subject. That was a difficult process, given the extreme autobiography abuse by its subject, who was also quite happy to use multiple IP addresses and usernames to evade repeated blocks.  So I also recognize the danger of people getting too invested in their biogaphies. (and it happens, that thing indirectly resulted in a pleasant telephone call from fellow autobiographer Jimbo Wales, by way of MerkeyLaw - Exposing the Stalkers :-)).


 * I guess I think it's not a problem, until it's a problem, to put it in a down-homey way (or my best approximation of that). Editors can become POV-mongers on lots of subjects, autobiography is hardly the only one.  But an assumption that anything autobiographical must automatically violate NPOV seems wrong-headed to me.


 * For example, most of the Wikimedia Foundation board violate the WP:AUTO guidline: see Category:Wikipedian autobiography.

9. Any comments on the RfA process?


 * There is an interesting discussion going on at User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform. I think that discussion gets at several problems that exist with the RfA process.  One editor over there comments that the way things are setup now, it's easier for an editor with 2000 edits to get approved for administratorship than it is for one with 20,000 edits (I'm logarithmically closer to the second :-)).  That is, fewer edits mean fewer questionable diffs.
 * But even beyond raw numbers, topics tend to slant the oppose faction. Two editors of similar temperament who edits controversial and non-controversial topics will fare differently on RfA nomination.  Quite possibly, not for the best, those who involved themselves in controversial topics (and perhaps therefore know who to promote NPOV in thorny areas) will fare worse than those who have a narrower or non-political area of interest.  To quote a bit from the abovementioned discussion:


 * I agree, but people who were involved in wiki-fight have some history to be judged on. People who were involved only in noncontroversial topics (e.g. tropical fish) and avoided any confrontation maybe a perfect editors but their behavior as admins is absolutely unpredictable as admins deal mostly with controversial or at least confrontational. May be they would be perfect admins, maybe they will through a tantrum maybe they will continue to ignore anything remotely controversial (not the best scenario). abakharev 04:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with Alex Bakharev here. Being currently on RfA nomination myself, and having followed that of Ramallite (and a few others), I really get the impression that anyone who has a long history editing "controversial" topics, no matter how impeccable their behavior, has received a "kiss of death" for promotion. Well, that's an exaggeration: Ramallite squeaked by, and I might too. But generally, you can't try to promote NPOV on politicized topics without gaining "enemies" among those who want articles to push a particular and strident political POV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:20, 19 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.