Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan Liefting

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Alan Liefting[edit]

Final (22/25/12) ended 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Alan Liefting (talk · contribs) – Alan Liefting has done a considerable amount of Wikiwork since first arriving here in early 2004, with some 5500 edits, 80% of them in article space, but nicely spread over several namespaces (see here). His editing is particularly to be seen in matters relating to New Zealand and/or environmentalism. A conscientious and hard-working editor, his work includes lots of caretaker-ish activities such as reversion of pages, re-categorisation, page moving and the like, and as such admin tools would be both useful and safe in his hands. I previously suggested nominating him a few months back, but at that time he felt he wasn't ready (usually a very good sign). Edit summaries stats are good, too - the last 150 edits show 89% for major edits and 77% for minor edits. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thanks for the initial prompting James. Alan Liefting 08:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Well duh... like I would nominate if I didn't support? Support. Grutness...wha? 02:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I trust Grutness completely. Question answers a little on the short side, but who cares? Really? —Celestianpower háblame 08:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Trust Grutness completely, huh?" In that case, I have a bridge for sale you may be interested in ;) Grutness...wha? 12:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (thanks for the compliment!)[reply]
    Hmmm... I do! Grutness, we've got the bridge here in NYC. At most, you can sell short. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - per nom. -- Szvest 09:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  4. Support. Good editor, will make a great admin.-gadfium 09:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Meets my criteria. SushiGeek 10:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Solid editor, safe pair of hands for admin powers. -- Avenue 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Experienced editor. He really helps building an encyclopedia. Afonso Silva 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. DarthVader 13:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --Bhadani 14:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, will be a great addition to the administrative board.--WillMak050389 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support, the questions aren't important because adminship is no big deal. This user would not abuse the mop. --Rory096 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Busy, civil editor. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Right, you can't be an admin if you want to be an admin, and you can't be an admin if you're not hyper on the idea. He's probably having an off day, and I am overall sick with this RfA system, it's an excuse for other users to rip apart candidates for stupid things like this. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Does good work and will keep on doing it. Rockfan1 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Good editor, will make an excellent admin Brian | (Talk) 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I can look past the somewhat aloof answers below. The real question is whether he would abuse the tools; I think not. Aguerriero (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Merovingian {T C @} 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support on the basis of good character and overall sound contributions to Wiki, which indicate adminship will be carried out responsibly and tools will not be abused. Tyrenius 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support seems like a good, committed editor to me! Abcdefghijklm 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Looks like a good editor with initiative, let's see how they do as an admin. --Improv 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Good editor, will make a excellent admin. Onco_p53 06:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Seems civil, productive, and ready for the mop. moink 06:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per answers. Appears you have little interest in adminship. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Crazy Russian. Yanksox (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Crazy Russian, as the answer to Question 1 is particularly insufficient. Also, the editor's wiki-space experience is less than I like to see. Xoloz 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per CrazyRussian. Lack of wiki-space edits as noted above, and I don't get a sense of enthusiasm from his answers. Seems to be a bit of a template-dropper, too. He certainly is a good contributor, but I think he is more of a Wikignome than an admin. AdamBiswanger1 15:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Answers to questions aren't great and the level of wiki-space edits is too low for my usual criteria. --Wisden17 16:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose; weak questions; would also like to see some more project edits--TBCTaLk?!? 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, does not appear to need/want adminship, and low Wikipedia-namespace edit level suggests poor familiarity with policy. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per above, and fails my criteria. NSLE 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opoose Lack of Wikipedia-namespace edits is a concern. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per answers. Computerjoe's talk 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak, Very Relucatant Oppose - I really wanted to support ... the user has done a tremendous amount of work for environmental articles ... in fact, I had typed "support" and was just looking through edits to find reasons to make sure I was correct. But then I saw this - [1] - and that concerns me. Policy knowledge is essential for an administrator and this article was incorrectly tagged as a speedy only a few days ago. It also is of slight concern that a few xFD comments are simply "delete per nom", even in controversial xFDs where a reason more than simply a vote would be more helpful. Consider [2] and [3] for example BigDT 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. The user is certainly a great editor, but he has little apparent interest in or need for admin status. - Draeco 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per answers and lack of Wikipedia-space edits. (A couple different points on my brand new set of admin criteria.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandmasterka (talk • contribs) .
  14. Oppose' - per CrazyRussian and Stifle. Questions don't make me think he's quite familiar with what adminship is. I've included my optional questions below, I may change my vote on the replies (and that used to be NSLE's line :o) -- Tawker 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I think that you need to be fully committed to apply for adminship, and the answers to the standard RfA questions raise too many issues. haz (user talk) 20:36, 21 June 2006
  16. Oppose per the above.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Answers are just to breif. One of the things that admins have to be able to do is explain themselves. Eluchil404 23:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose see My RFA Criteria Anonymous__Anonymous 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per weak answers, and no reply to any optional questions to help out. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral or oppose? You've voted twice. Vildricianus 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per optional answers (or lack of them); despite their being "optional," in my opinion, one should at least attempt an answer at the majority of them. Since you have chosen not to answer any of them, I have to wonder if there is any real interest beyond the novelty of "being an admin." --Mhking 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Answer to question one doesn't indicate a need for admin powers whilst editing.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I don't like the answers form the questions at all, i'm just not convinced you need any such admin rights to put things in categories. MichaelBillington 04:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose as per Stifle and not keen on answers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per answers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - Answers does not show any need for admin tools. --WinHunter (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral, you don't need to be an admin to remove vandalism.. great editor but answers really turned me off.--Andeh 09:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You do if the whole article is vandalism. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be new page patrolling then. There's also {{d}} tag too. Neutrals aren't votes anyway, just reading material for the closing bureaucrat.--Andeh 10:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and if you are doing reversion of vandalism rollback is useful. Grutness...wha? 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but rollback can be used by non-admins (albeit it is not excatly the same thing) but it is still possible for non-admins to do, and use. --Wisden17 14:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will happily change to support if the answers to the new questions are better.--Andeh 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Good edits, but brief answers. Putting some more below that could help me decide. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral or oppose? You've voted twice. Vildricianus 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Fine editor but answers to the questions below leave a lot to be desired. Might change to support if the additional questions are answered well. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 15:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per all above, answers just not good enough. Roy A.A. 16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, the answers to questions are weak.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per Andeh and User:Kungfuadam --Guinnog 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, weak answers to questions. Will reconsider if the additional questions are answered better. BryanG(talk) 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral at this stage I'm afraid. You don't need sysop rights to do the tasks in your answer which makes me wonder if you are fully aware of the responsibilities of the role - per ByranG this may tip after viewing the answers to newer questions. - Glen 06:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral per messages above. The answers are too brief, and you could get about with those tasks without having admin tools. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral until questions are answered. — Deckiller 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral undecided whether or not to support after some studying of talk and contribs. --HResearcher 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate more. Anything specific? --Rory096 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral Seems like nom would not do much with admin tools. On the other hand, doesn't seem like he would abuse them. I don't see anything to give me a reason to go either way in supporting or opposing this nominee. Λらむだυうぷしろんδでるたαあるふぁcιいおたτたうγがんま 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Not enough Image space edits. Raichu 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Comment, I don't know what happened to the user, but their last edit was at 08:06, 20 June 2006 on this RfA.--Andeh 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Alan Liefting's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Count with Tool2:
Username Alan_Liefting
Total edits 5639
Distinct pages edited 3397
Average edits/page 1.660
First edit 20:48, January 3, 2004

(main) 4528
Talk 212
User 165
User talk 145
Image 16
Template 11
Template talk 19
Category 195
Category talk 46
Wikipedia 264 
Wikipedia talk 38
  • I don't see the big deal about the answers below -- reverting vandalism *is* made easier by adminship, a la "rollback". The categorisation thing is indeed a misconception, but people given adminship often don't know exactly what they're getting until long after it is given to them. There's no shame in that. --Improv 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

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:

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.
A: As an admin I would like to get more involved with the deletion of vandalism and the category categorisation.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I do like a recent stub that I started at Malvern Hills Protection Society. It is a well rounded article that is the right balance in both content and aesthetics. I also am proud of instigating Wikipedia:Wikiproject Environment. It is starting to get good use. The articles relating to environmental issues about the natural environment were quite messy.
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?
A: I have had no editing conficts as such. If I have had an edit undone I have usually accepted it. At present I have a philisophical differences on the talk pages on some proposed mergers but I will not turn it into an edit war. This issue and how I would do it in the future it taking it to the wider community rather than keeping it amongst a few.

Optional question from Goldom

1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?
A:
2. Why do you want to be an admin? (Personally, as opposed to the technical aspects in required question 1)
A:

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A

Optional Question from Nobleeagle (Talk)

  1. Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

Optional questions:

Dealing with frustration
You buy a dozen eggs. One of them is broken. Do you:
A. Eat eleven eggs,
B. Go back to Wal-Mart and pitch a fit about it,
C. Locate and kill the chicken, or
D. Other (please explain)
Role model
Who is your favorite superhero, comic-book or otherwise, and why?
Naming conventions
What are your views on parenthetical disambiguation?
Process vs. product:
We all know that good-faith edits, while not being vandalism per se, sometimes reduce the quality of an article, and should be reverted or amended. In your opinion, however, is it possible for an article to be improved by edits made in bad faith? What course of action would you take if such a scenario arose?

Thanks. — Jun. 21, '06 [17:23] <freak|talk>

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alan_Liefting&oldid=1144951788"