Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luvcraft


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

luvcraft
FINAL (2/9/3); closed per WP:SNOW by A l is o n  ☺ 00:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

- A diligent editor who's been contributing to Wikipedia for over 3 years Luvcraft 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would like to help revert vandalism, arbitrate in situations requiring admin intervention, block the IPs of repeated vandals and users who do not understand how Wikipedia works and are "learning destructively", who I would then do my best to help learn to use Wikipedia in a constructive way. I should mention that I am "inclusivist", and lean toward letting not-very-notable things into Wikipedia unless they are patent nonsense, but on the other hand I will follow the policies of Wikipedia and enact the will of the majority on deletions and other issues, even if I don't agree with them.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I am most fond of the articles for which I have only created stubs on discovering that no article existed, and then came back a few days later to find that other users had grown that stub into a full-blown article via their knowledge of the subject.


 * 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: The biggest headache I've dealt with on Wikipedia was the struggle over the "Metroidvania" article, which was caused by the fact that the term did not have a concrete enough definition, and although many people had very disparate ideas of what the word meant, none of those definitions were any more or less valid than any others. Once I came to the conclusion that the word was simply not well enough defined, I nominated the article for deletion, and helped to move it over to the Encyclopedia Gamia, which is a better repository for video game terms that are still up in the air. I subsequently explained this decision to a user trying to recreate the article.

'''Optional question from Kicking222
 * 4. Why do you frequently remove messages, warnings, and discussions from your talk page? I'm not making the de facto statement that this is an inherently bad idea, but it does seem to be both frowned upon and unnecessary. Thanks.
 * A: I just wanted to clean it up, since the majority of what was there were messages to me that were no longer relevant. Can you direct me to a guideline or a discussion against deleting content from user talk pages? Luvcraft 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would direct you to talk page guideline where it states: "More latitude is extended for user talk pages. Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. For more information, see User page." For a future administrator, archiving is definitely preferable, and for an administrator, I'd say it would be strongly suggested. Ariel ♥ Gold 23:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See luvcraft's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for luvcraft:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/luvcraft before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support I have no reason to oppose this user. I certainly suggest the candidate listens to what's being said in the opposition, and also enable the edit summary reminder in the preferences. With any luck, the next RfA should be successful. Acalamari 23:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. A good user, acting in good faith, and definately trustworthy. I would suggest working more on edit summaries and in other areas. Also, so you know, you can enable a preference in Special:Preferrences to remind you to use an edit summary. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose Edit summaries are important for admins, since they often need to explain there actions through them (ie why they are deleting a page, ect). Also, this is not something I like to see in admins, as it shows a lack of control.  ~   Wi ki  her mit  22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose per above, try to participate more in a variety of spaces (ex. Wikipedia). - Lemonflash (chat)  22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry, but oppose I'm sorry but in my opinion you don't have enough experience. You barely have any User talk edits which to me suggests an inexperience with vandalism fighting however this coupled with <100 talk space edits suggests you don't have experience with dispute resolution/disputes, either. Try building up some experience and coming back :) Computerjoe 's talk 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I think that this user has too few Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and user talk contributions and does not use edit summaries enough. Captain   panda  22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per lack of overall experience. Jmlk  1  7  22:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Oppose Lack of edit summaries, removing contnet from page, and the evidence Wikihermit has all compeals me to Strongley oppose. Sorry. Politics rule 22:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. My apologies, but the very first sentence of your response to question one bothers me greatly: "block the IPs of repeated vandals and users who do not understand how Wikipedia works." While I agree at times it is necessary to temporarily block vandals, blocking someone simply for their lack of knowledge about Wikipedia is not a valid (or desirable) thing to do. Instead, one should take the time to help them, either by giving them links to policies and guidelines, or by personally explaining areas they have problems with in detail. I have done both, with great success, and I shudder to think that those people may have been blocked simply for their "newbie"-ness. Second, while I think it is great that you've been editing for years, the simple fact is, you don't have nearly enough edits to show a firm grasp of the policies and guidelines that an administrator should know. Thirdly, your continued "empty" edit summary is disturbing, especially after so many years. On the off chance that you do not realize it, you can go into your preferences, and set it so Wikipedia will remind you if you haven't included an edit summary. (I see you've done that now.) In addition, I see little or no activity on WP:AIV, WP:UAA, or WP:RFCN and I don't get the feeling you truly grasp the depth of Wikipedia's infrastructure well enough to understand, much less effectively use, the tools of administrator. Finally, the evidence provided by  Wikihermit, and the lack of interaction with others, disturbs me. It is really part of an administrator's job to be able to interact with others politely, and appropriately, and I simply don't see that at this time. In conclusion, while your contributions over the years are most certainly appreciated, I don't believe that at this time, you would be able to effectively handle administration duties. Ariel ♥  Gold 23:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per above.  Mi r a n da   00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose- "I hadn't realized that edit summaries were important". Explaining your actions is very important. I do not believe you are ready to be able to correctly use administrator tools. -- Boricua  e  ddie  00:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Possibly Temporary Neutral until other info surfaces. You know, there is a setting that reminds you to add a summary. This could be a support, but I didn't want to look tediously at every diff.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Leaning towards oppose. I'm afraid I can't support, for a number of reasons. The first, and the most pressing, is that you hardly use edit summaries at all, which is very important so people know what you're doing. Under Preferences, in the editing tab, there's a checkbox that says "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" - I'd recommend turning this on. That aside, you say you wish to work with vandalism yet I can't see any vandalism warnings or reports to AIV in your contribution history. Finally, <2000 edits in 3 years really isn't very many, and particularly the fact that you have less than 50 to Wikipedia space in the last year, doesn't give us much to assess you on. You seem on the right tracks, though, so I'm not opposing. In a few months of solid editing (with summaries), I may support. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've turned edit summary notification on. I hadn't realized that edit summaries were important, although I have added them specifically when I've felt that the purpose of my edit was unclear. Luvcraft 21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, I just can't support either even though you appear to be a civil and dedicated user. I would suggest gaining some experience within Wikipedia's inner workings in the Wikipedia space and try again in 6-8 weeks. If I see the improvement, there should be no reason why I won't support the second time around. Croat Canuck   Say hello   or just talk  00:05, 17 August 2007 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.