Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Law

Editing stats for Law at 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC):

General user info Username: Law User groups: rollbacker First edit: Sep 04, 2008 08:50:36 Unique articles edited: 2,617 Average edits per page: 1.97 Total edits (including deleted): 5,148 Deleted edits: 46 Live edits: 5,102

Namespace totals Article	2770	54.29% Talk	169	3.31% User	179	3.51% User talk	1542	30.22% Wikipedia	255	5.00% Wikipedia talk	15	0.29% File	14	0.27% Template	4	0.08% Template talk	147	2.88% Category	2	0.04% Portal	3	0.06% Portal talk	2	0.04%

Month counts 2008/09	641	2008/10	2218	2008/11	818	2008/12	225	2009/01	287	2009/02	455	2009/03	422	2009/04	36

Logs Pages moved: 16 Pages patrolled: 3 Files uploaded: 9

Top edited articles Article

* 79 - Commodore_64 * 63 - Knott's_Halloween_Haunt * 53 - Motocross_Madness_2 * 45 - Dick's_Last_Resort * 37 - Interstate_Income_Act_of_1959 * 36 - Tilted_Kilt * 36 - Complete_Auto_Transit,_Inc._v._Brady * 36 - AXXo * 35 - Hippie * 31 - Moonlight_Brewing_Company

Talk

* 10 - AXXo * 9 - Anonymous_(group) * 7 - Barack_Obama * 5 - Lipstick_on_a_pig * 4 - Child_labour * 4 - Petco_Park * 4 - List_of_BitTorrent_clients * 4 - East_Village,_San_Diego * 4 - Hippie * 4 - Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)

User

* 89 - Law * 9 - Law/huggle.css * 7 - Law/NOODLE * 6 - Law/HITNRUN * 6 - Law/TabsCabecera * 5 - Law/Caja_Personal * 5 - Law/MisArticulos * 5 - Law/Photos * 5 - Law/Tasks * 4 - Law/Proyectos

User talk

* 53 - Law * 46 - THEN_WHO_WAS_PHONE? * 26 - Jennavecia * 11 - Otherlleft * 9 - Eastlaw/Archive_3 * 9 - Alex537 * 8 - Rjanag * 5 - Iridescent * 5 - Cirt * 4 - 68.194.107.112

Wikipedia

* 61 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 33 - Huggle/Whitelist * 9 - Articles_for_deletion/Kinobe * 8 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 4 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring * 4 - Requests_for_adminship/Law * 4 - Articles_for_deletion/Cannibal_Killers_Live * 3 - Articles_for_deletion/Bernard_Morris * 3 - Requests_for_adminship/SoWhy * 3 - WikiProject_Taxation

Wikipedia talk

* 4 - WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases * 4 - Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_2 * 3 - Requests_for_adminship/Ecoleetage_3 * 3 - Did_you_know * 1 - WikiProject_Halloween

File

* 3 - ArenaUrbanJungle.jpg * 3 - Lawsgreatest.jpg * 2 - Topgun2.jpg * 2 - Mcm2.jpg * 2 - Halloweenhauntlogo.jpg * 1 - Tilted_Kilt_logo.jpg * 1 - Dicks_logo.jpg

Template

* 3 - Gospel_Jesus * 1 - UStaxation

Template talk

* 146 - Did_you_know * 1 - User_committed_identity

Category

* 1 - Godzilla_films * 1 - Turkish_billionaires

Portal

* 2 - Arts * 1 - Contents/Overviews/Culture_and_the_arts

Portal talk

* 1 - Arts * 1 - Biography

Put on hold?
Per this, it appears that the nominee now has limited computer access and RL concerns that could prevent him from being able to participate in the RfA or respond to any further questions/comments. Is it possible to put the RfA on hold until the nominee is back? Or does everyone think there's already enough stuff here to go by? Just checking, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the nominee will need regular access for this RfA to complete. In other circumstances I would say we have enough, but since this candidate's history is less extensive (in time, and in areas of involvement), this RfA is highly dependent on Questions for the candidate; going on the current dashed-off answers is unfair. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is only half way run its course, so I'll put on hold for now. — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thoughtful decision, Rlevse.--Caspian blue 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

26 questions so far.
Get real, this should not be a week-long gauntlet. If this question craze continues, RFA should be extended by another week. NVO (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed (although not the time extension) . Questions should be used to tease out answers that are not otherwise available through examination of contributions. This excess seems, to me, evidence that some of those commenting are too lazy to research the candidate, or are asking questions for some other agenda than to promote a discussion. Pedro : Chat  21:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the other questions, or if mine are some of the ones that you guys think are excessive. But I felt compelled to ask them because, for an editor who is advertised as being a DYK person, Law has relatively few contributions to DYK (according to the above, only 146 to the DYK nominations page; for comparison, I think I had something like 1500 in two months working there) and has not really participated much in the background discussions at WT:DYK, making it difficult for me to know how much he is aware of, and has thought about, some of the issues at DYK that he would have to be dealing with a lot as an admin there.  And I wasn't really asking questions to hound him; rather, I am hoping that his answers will be good and will persuade me to move to Neutral.  Anyway, that's just my two cents about why I asked more questions. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Only has 146 edits to DYK"? Not being funny, but I really have seen it all now… Aside from my own talk page, I'm not sure there's any page I have 146 edits to. To put that in perspective, Ottava has 243 edits to DYK and Durova has 126. –  iride scent  21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because nominators and supporters depict Law as DYK clerk unlike you, Durova, and Ottava, prolific DYK contributors with nominations of their own article creation/expansion. 146 edits are relatively small numbers given the context.--Caspian blue 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding me. T:TDYK is a single page where you review nominations over and over again.  146 edits to a single article or other page is a ton (I think I only have two or three articles I've edited that much), but at T:TDYK, a page that is constantly going through new nominations (about 30 or 40 a day) that all need to be reviewed (and most of which need to be commented on several times as issues are worked out), it's not really a lot.  Like I said above, I got a couple thousand edits there in only about two months.
 * I'm not saying Law's contributions there are worthless. His work there is valuable, it's just not a whole lot (compared to most of the regulars there).  The revision history statistics seems to be down slow right now, but once it's back up you can take a look. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, Ottava and Durova are not the best people to compare to; most of their work is nominating their own articles there, not reviewing and promoting others. Ottava has been gradually starting to do more of that in recent months, but it's still not his main focus, and I don't know if I've ever seen Durova review nominations there (since I started working there). It would be more reasonable to compare to people who do spend most of their time reviewing noms, which is what Law does; for example, Awadewit, who only started working there maybe two months ago, has about 880 edits right now. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that way too many questions have been asked. This is ridiculous. Crazy numbers of questions have been discussed at WT:RFA, and, since, most RfAs have seemed to have had less... until this one. Not sure why this RfA attracted so many though.  hmwith  τ   21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think because a lot of people felt that just by looking at Law's contribs they didn't have much to go by, and they wanted to find out more before !voting. I can understand that; I like Law and I think he does good work (from what I have seen), but I just don't know very much about him, specifically in the context of DYK, which seems to be the main selling point of his nomination. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on specific individuals, (though specifically responding to Rjanag - I don't doubt you wanted more information and that your question is fair in your context) but I do feel this RFA has become "asking questions for the sake of asking them". Questions at RFA are there to gain insight that cannot be found through a thorough review of contributions. Pedro : Chat  21:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally have no questions that are specific to specific individuals. Rjanag had a specific question that stemmed from specific comments on the RfA and a discord that he saw with the edit history, that is exactly what (IMO) questions should be for.  It's the questions that are on fishing trips where people ask their own little silo'd questions that bother me.  If you are asking the same question(s) of every candidate, then those are likely the questions that many of us find wasteful.  Hmmmm, User:X asked a question about WP:ABC, what answer did user:X like in the past?  Questions should be specific based upon the specific RfA or edit history of the candidate... not a place for every tom dick and harry to advocate their personal agenda.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions should be a means by which we are helped to determine whether we should entrust the nominee with the extra responsibilities/tools that go along with adminship. If a question isn't intended to do that, then I would agree that the question in question (smile) would be extraneous. - jc37 12:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are times when admins have (well, not really, but it's not always easy to ignore or decline requests) to do things we don't really feel like doing. If it's too much for the candidate to answer legitimate questions (and this is obviously not speaking on Law, who has done well to answer questions), I doubt they'll do well to respond to requests as an admin. Answering questions isn't a gauntlet. They're asking for the ability to block people, delete and protect pages, and have access to some sensitive information... I think they can answer some questions. However, if pointless or otherwise unnecessary questions are being asked, then there's a problem. In those cases, probably best to bring the issue up on the asker's talk page, as talking about it here is unlikely to change anything. Mine, for example, won't change from complaints on an RFA talk page. لenna vecia  13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Law recently began to participate in helping DYK areas, so according to edit counter his edit count to DYKs, 146 is the lowest number among the Did_you_know.
 * Rjanag about 3200
 * Backslash Forwardslash about 1710
 * Orlady 1561
 * Shubinator 1231
 * JamieS93 1005
 * Awadewit 1074
 * RyanCross 970 (semi-retired since Feb.)
 * Mifter 781
 * Chamal N 333

The selling point as a DYK helper is weak compared with other non-admin participants. I have no problem with Rjanag's specified questions regarding DYK matters. --Caspian blue 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, Law is a good contributor and is a net benefit to DYK. I still remember the day he came to WT:DYK to ask if he could start helping out, and he has been doing a good job since then.  My comments in the above thread were not intended to tear him apart or anything; I just wanted to clarify, because some people seem to be confused over what "being active at DYK" entails, and the nom statement and early Supports all give you the impression that Law is DYK, which is not the case.  I don't have any problem with how much or little Law chooses to do at DYK&mdash;certainly anything at all is helpful&mdash;I just wanted to point out that it hasn't been enough yet to give me a good feel for what Law is like, which is why I added more questions for him. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rjanag, this list is rather for me to figure out the candidate' specialty because I've really wondered how come I don't recall him at all on DYK areas (my edit count is 118 for nominating my DYKs). Of course law is a fair contributor, but still needs more "experiences" and his edits on the specialty is also low. --Caspian blue 22:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I can shed some light
I was nominated for the position of admin. I accepted said request because DYK is the one place that I find to be home. Based on those who have show stats, I may only have 147 edits. Those edits are very intense. They involve many components: checking date, article length, validity of the article, making sure it has not been a news article, not a copyvio, the image must be free, and verifying the hook - which is the most difficult. The number may seem small, but each edit to DYK takes precision and policy knowledge. I apologize if I sound snarky for such a statement. They are simply not easy edits, as was done with my time with Huggle, where I did so many edits in a small amount of time. If I need more experience, I am more than happy to keep participating. Whatever the result of this RFA, I'm happy to see that so many people participated and tried their best to guide me to become a better participant. Never will there be hard feelings. Ever!

Thanks Guys. Lawshoot! 09:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Related discussions
Since it has been revealed that was an undisclosed sockpuppet of de-sysopped, miscellaneous arbitration requests have been filed, perhaps the most prominent of which is:
 * Arbitration/Requests.

Multiple related Motions are currently being discussed by the Arbitration Committee at:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Motions

--Elonka 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)