Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lazulilasher

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

Lazulilasher

[edit]

Final: (61/0/0); Closed by Bibliomaniac15 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher (talk · contribs) - Lazulilasher is a long time user, his first edit was back in March 2006 and during the intervening time he has made another 6600 edits (his edit rate has fluctuated rather wildly but since June Lazulilasher has made more than 150 edits/month so that should be a non-issue). A great article builder Lazulilasher has worked on one featured article, five good articles, and six DYKs as well as contributing to to the processes that organize such content, WP:GAN, WP:FAC, and WP:PR, at a not insubstantial level.

Lazulilasher's contributions to admin related areas, primarily AfD and vandal fighting (not so much recently though), have also been decent; his participation at AfD and other deletion debates is always well though out and almost always brings something new too the discussion (as opposed to constant "per user:x"ing) and while his contributions to the areas of protection and speedy deletion have not been voluminous, every RFPP and CSD tag (as far as I have been able to determine) has been acted upon. He is also involved in dispute resolution in the past, mostly the unofficial Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Third opinion; valuable experience for a prospective admin.

I have no doubt that making Lazulilasher an administrator would further the goals of this encyclopedia. - Icewedge (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. Thanks, I must say I am quite flattered. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Statement: I began editing Wikipedia intensely last December, and since I have been involved with various aspects. Why do I do this? Because I love Wikipedia and the collaboration it engenders. It is incredible that you can write a bit about some obscure subject like the Pavillon de Flore and actually find someone else to help you. I firmly support the notion of creating an encyclopaedia that comprises our collective knowledge--available freely, and compiled completely by volunteers. While I have made mistakes, I hope that you find that overall my work benefitted the encyclopedia.

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My edits are erratic throughout the project. I tend to heavily edit articles for a time, then follow with a little xfD work or some such. I expect to continue this type of editing; thus, I will likely continue my article work and perform admin duties slowly. I will help tackle backlogs in the areas I have previously worked in--xfD and maybe help occasionally at AIV. Initially, I will work only with clear-cut cases, in order that I learn more from those who have the most experience.
I would also be able to edit fully protected templates. This is not something that I frequently have an urge to-do; yet, it does occur. Yesterday, I was working on creating a "Paris" taskforce as part of WP:FRANCE. This required editing the template. I created the new taskforce bit, and an admin updated the template for me. Having the ability would make it one-step shorter. I note: this is not something I would be in the habit of doing frequently. I would always make a draft in my userspace to verify that the template worked before editing any high-risk templates (as I did with the France template).
If a large backlog ever developed at CSD I might take a look at it, however I would be extremely careful (the second article I created was tagged for CSD, so I understand the need for caution) Thus, if a backlog developed I would be sure the article met the specified criterion. I would also do my own clean up (deleting pages from my own userspace, etc...)
Honestly, much of my work on en-wiki has occured by chance. I've rarely operated with a long-term plan or "goal", but rather have stumbled upon situations in which I felt I could assist. To me, an administrator should be happy to assist with mundane tasks, something I would be willing to do if given the oppurtunity.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Throughout my wiki-life I have made some mistakes, and (hopefully) contributed usefully here and there. I am most proud of my work on the Louvre article. Although it is not an FA (in fact, it failed an FAC nom in May), I have worked on it extensively since January. The article may never be a FA; however, I have and will continue to improve it. I love when a group of editors come together to work on an article at the same time; it's a great feeling to see your edits ameliorated by others. This happened on numerous occasions, when editors volunteered to research portions or perform a copyedit (I always need a copyeditor's help).
I've been heavily involved with WP:FRANCE, where my goal has been to increase organisation and collaboration. While we are not WP:MILHIST yet, I do feel that we have improved. I was proud of the work I did with the project's redesign.
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: Yes, I have been in conflicts. The most significant regarded the Pied-Noir article. An editor continually added a long-list of criticisms to the article; many items were original research. I reached out to him on his talk page and in the article's Peer Review. Throughout, I worked in conjunction with two other editors. Did I handle it perfectly? I cannot say, but I strived to uphold verifiability and civility throughout.
In the vandalism arena, I once had a conversation with an anonymous editor (here), which ended in a discussion regarding the need for {{fact}} tags en lieu of vandalism (see here. I felt this was a reasonably positive outcome.
I've also been involved in Wikiquette Alerts and have provided Third Opinions. I tend to feel that I have assisted; however, I have not been overly active there recently due to an increased workload at WP:FRANCE.

Optional questions from Realist2

4. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A:There are two questions here. The first is: what would I do in the hypothetical? I've been in similar situations, but not one that mirrors exactly. On the surface: if the new user's edits are verifiable according to reliable sources, then my hope would be that consensus would follow. In my experience, new users with excellent sources are always welcome (and encouraged). I would go to the talk page and post my concerns (something like this, "I notice Example (talk · contribs) has added a bit to the X section regarding the subject's actions during the Bourbon Restoration....etc".) I would work to find consensus. Usually, editors are willing to discuss changes if reliable sources are provided (a more difficult question would be: what if two reliable sources conflict?)
The second question is: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" This is more difficult. My gut says: "We are building an encylopedia, we must be verifiable." This is especially true with BLP, quotations, etc. We must endeavour to provide our readers with verifiable sources. If this is a problem and, for whatever reason, consensus is against verifiability and reliability, then steps must be taken to protect the project. In my opinion, a good starting point is: Third Opinion.

Optional questions from Blooded Edge

5 Wikipedia has a multitude of different policies, which do you personally feel is the most important? Please also provide a reason explaining your choice.
A: As I noted in question #4, and as our first pillar states: we are an enclcyopedia. Therefore, our job is to write verifiable articles. I believe the need to provide fact-checked and reliable work to our readers is paramount. From this, stems policies which help us to achieve our goal.
5b: I would like to ask one more question, if no-one minds. Often, administrators will have to deal with disruptive IPs/Users. Assume that you succeed this RfA, and find yourself in the following predicament. An IP/new User has edited prominent articles in Good Faith, but when another User reverts these additions, the IP/new User reacts in an obscene and violent manner. The IP/new User has no history with vandalism, and recent contributions before this, are of a good quality. Would you place a 'cool down' block for, lets say, 12 hours? What is your stance on the 'cool down' block? Bear in mind, Wikipedia (last time I checked) generally discourages such paths of action, as they often just inflame the situation. But there is a chance that the subject of the block will take the time to calm himself/herself, meaning it can work at times. I look forward to your response :).
A: This is a multi-faceted questions. First, what do you mean by "violently"? Is he threatening violence? Is he grossly disrupting the project? Or is he just upset because he is new, and has not participated in a "bold-revert-discuss" cycle before? There are many variations on this theme. Blocks only meant to "cool-down" are not to be used, but the policy notes that blocks preventive of further disruption can be.
Most likely, he is a new user who is not familiar with our editing process. He may not know that his edit is saved in the page history. I would bring this to his attention, attempt to reason, and urge him to bring his concerns to the talk page. I would reach out, first.
By 'violently' I intended to mean abusive behaviour, ie swearing. Anyway, thanks for your answer. Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support- I've seen this user around and consider them to be reasonable, and will be a net gain to the 'pedia if given the mop. Reyk YO! 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. naerii 22:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as a Good Thing. The edit count fluctuates wildly, yes, but with GA and FA tags and a respectable number of AIV reports nobody can argue that this indicates either 1) lack of mainspace/AV experience or 2) the possibility of the user being unfamiliar with wiki-policy in those areas. Ironholds 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Who would make such an argument anyway? — Realist2 23:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing i've learnt is that people will make "oppose" comments about anything, regardless of how ridiculous it is. See Andrew Kelly on SoWhy's RfA, for example. Ironholds 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How could I forget. — Realist2 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I can already tell this will be a pile on. Good luck! America69 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Good contributor. Why not? Malinaccier (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support After reviewing the editor's talk page, I am convined there is little likelihood would abuse/misuse the tools. Editor has made a sufficient number of edits to be comfortable with the level of experience. GA's and FA's (a Triple Crown yet) weigh in favor of support with me, as they are further indicators the editor can participate productively in a collaborative environment and is knowledgeable of policies and guidelines. Also, I like the answers to the questions they indicate good critical thinking and ability to communicate. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Net positive. Will make a great admin. Xclamation point 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Two tickets for Godzilla vs. Megalon, please. Oh, wrong queue...damn, I was looking forward to seeing that flick, too. But while I am here: Support, because I am looking forward to seeing this fine editor become an admin! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Good, I hope you revive French project as well with your tools.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Interactions with this user have been positive, good contributions = mop in sight. Best of luck, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I trust this user.--ragesoss (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Everything I've seen from this user convinces me to support. Level-headed and mature. Gladys J Cortez 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support an excellent editor, and I hope this will gradually encourage him to be around here more,for we need people like this. DGG (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Funny, my room-mate says the exact opposite. :) Lazulilasher (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support All of my interactions with Lazulilasher and his answers to the questions so far make me believe he is mop-worthy, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I can't say that I'm familiar with Lazulilasher—which is, I gather, my loss—but my analysis tracks closely with that of Dlohcierekim, and I conclude with a good deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 03:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support – I notice in particular some of his commentary at AfD discussions. He comes across as thoughtful, clueful, trustworthy. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Absolutely trustworthy, looks like. Prince of Canada t | c 08:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support No reason for concern. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support from neutral (technicality) below - the candidate has responded well to my concern there, and he has a lot of relevant admirable qualities. I did look (in some detail) at his contributions in the dispute resolution process, and I was around in WQA at the time he was involved. His responses have always been helpful in resolving the dispute quickly and effectively. (I could've supported his RFA, solely based on the quality of his responses and the way he handled those disputes.) He's made good contributions in other important areas, whether they are content or admin-related, and he pays quite a bit of attention to some of the finer details others may overlook. I could keep going on and on I think, but in essence, I think I can sum it up with the following line; I'm very confident that he will be a fine admin. Best wishes - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. The candidate has won me over through his detailed responses to the questions provided. I have no hesitations in stating he may indeed make a fine administrator. Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I've not seen you around before, but anyone who is able to help out at AfD and has time to dedicate themselves to a WikiProject redesign deserves my support. Caulde 16:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Good contributions & answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I like the answers and can't find any reason not to support. --Banime (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Good editor, no doubt they will make a fine admin. — neuro(talk) 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support good editor, can be trusted with the tools. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support -- Excellent. XfD, CSD, AN/I, mediation, lots of article edits, clean user page, no problems, no issues. Perfect. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I have worked with User:Lazulilasher on several articles. He is talented, hard-working, congenial, fair, and trustworthy. I wholeheartedly support this nomination. Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. No problems here - Tan | 39 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. You're one of the users that I go around seeing and say, "That's one of the users who works so well without the tools he may not even need them." You're awesome, seriously. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support Excellent all around work. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. - Per the nom, answers to the first three questions, and some quality positive contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Solid answers to questions + good contribs = support. Steven Walling (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Aye - no reason no to, good answers as well. Black Kite 10:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Wow, I'm amazed no one thought of this before. Though I have only worked with this editor over a brief period of time, I have found his contributions to be of excellent quality. His dedication to the citing and verifying of information in articles is an admirable quality, and I believe that he would make an excellent admin. Jordan Contribs 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. He has sufficient experience in multiple areas. He writes good articles, keeps vandals at bay, works towards defusing conflicts at Wikiquette alerts, and makes substantive comments at AfD. VG ☎ 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No reason to think he'll abuse the tools. rootology (C)(T) 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Great editor, deserves the tools. LittleMountain5 review! 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support As per track and see no misuse of tools. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support a strong candidate. Spinach Dip 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Absolutely. — Realist2 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support II MusLiM HyBRiD II 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support--LAAFansign review 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - nothing alarming here --Flewis(talk) 04:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Experienced, and has seemed like a sensible and pleasant person during my encounters with him. Epbr123 (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Looks good to me. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seems well versed in several important ways....Modernist (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support ex-LOC member, and by extension, a godsend. Oh, and everything else everone else said that was good as well :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. STrong support Great editor adn writer. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support has my utmost respect. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Sure, looks fine. Good luck! GlassCobra 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - looks great. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - seems to be a very friendly editor and would benefit from the tools.   jj137 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Quick! pileon! Seriously though, good contributor; good admin. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Appears to be an excellent communicator, and otherwise unlikely to abuse the bits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. He has experience in admin-related areas and he is unlikely to abuse the tools. AdjustShift (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Excellent candidate, knowledgeable and helpful. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: You have my trust and confidence. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]


Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral Note; I'll be voting definitively one way or another in the next couple of days. However, I have a criticism for both the candidate and the nominator (nom.) so I'm leaving my vote here momentarily so they can respond accordingly before I add my actual vote. The candidate appears to have responded to 6 Wikiquette alerts over 6 months, 2 wqas were very brief. The nom. stated it provided valuable experience for being an administrator, and the candidate has said something similar. I find problems with making those statements and leaving it at that in an RFA. For example, you (and parties to a wqa) might "feel" that you have assisted, but there could be major issues how the parties were advised (misrepresentation of policy, poor advice, etc.) Further, where a user has handled a small number of such complaints or requests in this stage of dispute resolution, among others, can it really be considered as a measure of experience in this area? (Future noms/candidates should keep this in mind.) In any case, I exclusively ask both the nom. or candidate in this RFA to please be more specific - how does Lazulilasher's involvement in this WQA demonstrate that the user gathered valuable experience, particularly where the involvement appears to be rather minimal? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Switched to support[reply]
    I replied on the discussion page. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:30, 6 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lazulilasher&oldid=1142546233"