Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LAX

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

LAX

[edit]

Final (45/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAX (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate LAX for adminship. LAX has been on Wikipedia for 6 months now, with nearly 9000 edits. He is a very active and trusted contributor in WikiProject Professional wrestling, and is also a regular vandal-patroller. He is civil and mature, as well as calm, friendly, and helpful. I think these are the traits an administrator should have, and I think that LAX fit these traits. I would trust that LAX would make very good use of the admin tools. The Chronic 16:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you very much! I accept. Cheers, LAX 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will continue to work on pro wrestling articles, using the tools to revert any vandalism I see, as well as blocking them if they continue. Pro wrestling articles receive high amounts of vandalism daily and I feel that if I possess the tools, I could revert vandalism at a much faster rate. I would work at WP:RFPP, protecting any articles that receive excessive amounts of vandalism. And since I feel there are just too many vandals here, I would also do some work at WP:AIV, blocking them if necessary.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions would have to be under the field of professional wrestling. I mainly expand pay-per-view events, turning them from a list of results into an article that contains and goes into detail of the background, event, and aftermath. Ever since we [WP:PW] decided to start expanding pay-per-view events, I have expanded seven of them. Those being: SummerSlam (2007), The Great American Bash (2007), No Way Out (2006), Survivor Series (2007), Survivor Series (2002), WrestleMania 21, and SummerSlam (2002). Someday I would like to get these to at least Good Article status. I am also particularly pleased with my vandalism revisions, whether it's pro wrestling related or Wikipedia in general.
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: I haven't been in any real edit conflicts; although, there is one user who really stresses me out, Hornetman16. Just recently, he came back and was editing as an IP. While he was still editing as an IP, he created the account Florida16 and gave a friendly introduction to WP:PW. Ever since this user first got blocked, he has been creating new accounts and disrupting Wikipedia as a whole. I have learned to deal with it as I know there are other users who know him very well.

Optional question from LessHeard vanU

4. Please comment, as an editor on articles relating to the subject, on what type of vandalism at Pro Wrestling articles would you would consider deleting - and sanctioning the concerned editors - and what kind you shouldn't delete/sanction. Also, what you should do with vandalism that you are uncertain falls into the above category/ies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would most defiantly revert personal attacks, as well as edits that are patent nonsense. I would also revert unverified speculation and original research, blocking those who continually vandalize in the ways mentioned. I would revert edits that cannot be verified and don't maintain a neutral point of view, but I wouldn't be so quick to block them as I now they are trying to make Wikipedia a better place. I shouldn't be so quick to revert and block those who are being bold or those assuming good faith. If I was ever uncertain about vandalism, I would ask a fellow admin, and If they didn't know, I would ask another admin, as well as the Village pump. Cheers, LAX 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support added below. ps Administrators Noticeboard is also a good for advice and review of sysop actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Dlohcierekim .

5. Hello, LAX and thank you for submitting your RfA. Conflict resolution is an important admin skill. Could you please tell us what prompted this comment on your talk page? Dlohcierekim 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: To tell you the truth, I don't really know why. It may be because he was just uncivil, or for some other unknown reason. I didn't really want to deal with it, so I let him go on his own. Cheers, LAX 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte asks:

The following questions are all optional. I've selected you at random for some experimental RFA questions, ones which I've spent the last several days of my spare time deciding how best to articulate. I don't believe I've ever interacted with you, and I have no pre-conceived notions about your qualifications or general character, other than those stemming from your username, which is probably a reference (for better or worse) to Los Angeles, CA, so I feel you'd be a fair test subject. Enjoy.

6. This question is a purely philosophical one; there is no clear right or wrong answer. I'm less concerned with the actual answer than how you choose to defend it. Please rank the six "admin actions" (block, delete, protect, unblock, undelete, unprotect) from greatest to least according to the maximum potential of each "button" to harm the project if used improperly. Explain your ranking of each. "They all have the same potential" is not a valid answer (of course if you do feel that way, you can just leave it blank ).
A: I do in fact feel that all are equally powerful. I feel this way because those actions are only granted to admins that are trusted by the Wikipedia community, and If you were to abuse just one of those actions, the WP community would no longer trust you. Cheers, LAX 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all admin actions can be described as "equally powerful", but only in the apathetic Newtonian sense that they are fully and mutually reversible (as an equal and opposite action exists for each). I say "apathetic" as this perspective deliberately avoids considering (the important part of) the end result. Whether the community trusts or doesn't trust a specific user isn't a trivial matter, but is of lesser importance than the quality of the project, i.e. the encyclopedia. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Is there anyone on Wikipedia (either in user-space, or in article-space, or perhaps both...) whom you consider a positive role model for you?
A: Yes there are, TJ Spyke and bulletproof 3:16. Each one has been editing Wikipedia for quite a while now (TJ since March of 2006 and bulletproof since October of 2005), with each of them reverting vandalism the old fashioned way at a particularly fast rate. Both TJ and bulletproof have been dedicated users to the Professional wrestling Wikiproject. Cheers, LAX 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shall look forward to meeting them. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Among all of Wikipedia's policies (Warning: this category might not be completely and properly populated), which one(s) would you feel least comfortable enforcing, and are there any which you feel should be reconsidered, or which we might be better off without? (Scope of your answer need not be an entire policy page; sections, paragraphs, individual bullet points, sentences, comma-separated clauses... all fair game here. List as many as you like.)
A: I feel the least comfortable enforcing WP:BOT. I have the least amount of knowledge with bots, and I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to enforce what I don't really know. I feel that all the policies enforced on Wikipedia, should stay and not be reconsidered. Cheers, LAX 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything you don't really know can be learned. Spare your fear for that which you know to be wrong. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. What do the words "free encyclopedia" mean to you? (Warning: "you don't have to pay to read it" instantly fails as a response).
A: I believe the term "free encyclopedia" means that anyone can edit and everyone has the ability to help improve the encyclopedia as a whole, regardless of whether they're registered or not. Cheers, LAX 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is known as "the free encyclopedia" because it uses a free license (namely the GFDL) which permits redistribution, blatant copying, and even commercial use of its user-created content by third parties, without royalty or other surcharge, so long as the authors are properly credited. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Finally, please link to what you believe is the most amusing comment you have ever made on Wikipedia (or on a sister project such as meta or commons). Humor me!
A: I hate to disappoint you, but I cannot find an edit in which I have been amusing. I'm sure there are some, but I cannot find any right now. Cheers, LAX 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'll accept IRC logs. :p — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (in case you really don't have a sense of humor, please note that the above is sarcasm. Please do not actually post IRC logs)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support Seems fine. Epbr123 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Slight Support I'm confident LAX wouldn't abouse the tools, but I would like to see more activity from him at WP:AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clear the above up: When I say "more activity at AFD", I mean that I would prefer to see LAX getting into more discussions at AFD's, stating whether he thinks a particular article should be kept or deleted. I don't mean actually nominating articles. D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support will not abuse tools, but improve Wikipedia. Zenlax T C S 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I don't see any problems. This user will make a great admin. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, but see DMN's comment. Otherwise, you seem to be a pretty good user. SpencerT♦C 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Great user. Dreamy § 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Per D.M.N and Not because I am being biased (both of us apart of WP:PW) but LAX is always striving to make Wikipeida better, and as an admin he can do that more.--TrUCo9311 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I like this user's work around here. Looks good, and I have no qualms. Jmlk17 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SupportLAX is a very dedicated user. He would make a great administrator. iMatthew 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A decent editor who will use the tools properly. Icestorm815 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as nominator. The Chronic 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, he knows his way through Wikipedia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. We need more admins who can deal with the black hole that is wrestling articles. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Merovingian (T, C) 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Will use tools well. Timmeh! 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good and trustworthy user. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as meets my standards and per the good arguments above. Dlohcierekim 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. User:Dorftrottel 02:26, January 24, 2008
  20. Support Good editor --Veritas (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - looks good enough to me. Tiptoety talk 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Per DHMO. Gromlakh (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support can't found a reason to oppose. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Answers to Q.4 indicate that the candidate is properly knowledgable regarding how sysops should operate. Everything else appears fine, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. You seem like a great editor that is committed to this project. Your answer to Q4 is especially promising. Good luck with the mop! Keeper | 76 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Per comments in neutral. Daniel (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support This canadite seems dedicated to wikipedia and knows the sysops responsibilities -- should become a great sysop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assasin Joe (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No problems to be seen. You're ready for the mop! --Sharkface217 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - I see no reason not to. LAX certainly is interested in subject areas where we can use another admin or two. - Philippe | Talk 04:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Of course, user is very capable and has demonstrated why is they are such a great member of this community :-) ScarianCall me Pat 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Per above..Good luck! Λua∫Wise (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support- Deserves it, knows the way, will improve Wikipedia NiMiTiZe Msg 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Capable user. Knows policy enough to be trusted with the tools. I see no problems. -- Alexf42 13:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I have know this user for a while now, and I have always trusted him. Good luck:-)--SJP (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - He has almost made the same amount of edits as myself in less than half the time. Statistics aside, I think here we have a very compentant user. Great vandal fighter and dedicated Wikipedian. Lradrama 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support SexySeaShark 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per WP:AGF Triona (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Sure! King Lopez Contribs 10:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Accepting above comments. --Bhadani (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - can be trusted with the tools. --BelovedFreak 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Good user. Acalamari 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Yeah, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. The Transhumanist 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No reason to oppose. GlassCobra 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose. Fails JG Test. Anwar (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose Doesn't yet pass my requirements. Only 400~ times has he touched Wikipedia space and 62 were Sandbox/Archive. No back-end experience yet. Lawrence § t/e 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
[edit]
Currently seeing to check if there's more editing like this. Will hopefully come to a conclusion soon and cast my hat either way. Daniel (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) There was a few other things over the last couple of months, but nothing terribly serious when I factored in when they occured and the context. Moving to support. Daniel (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. Don't feel comfortable supporting at this time. Can't justify opposing as the experimental questions are flawed, sorely need patching up. A bit surprised the candidate responded at all, in retrospect. — CharlotteWebb 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I'm not mistaken, (and I just may be and expect you to tell me so), you asked no less than 5 "experimental" and "flawed" questions, received 5 answers that are as good as they can be for "experimental" and "flawed" questions, and then added 5 comments on each of his 5 answers that he was more or less answering appropriately. Now, you state you were surprised that the candidate actually answered them at all? (which is ridiculous - yes it says optional but everyone know that everyone answers every question int their own RfA, otherwise they get assinine opposes for not being "responsive to the community"...) All that and then you say Neutral? So are you neutral because of your own flawed questions, or because of his answers to them? Am I missing something here? Keeper | 76 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.