Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453

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

*(non-bureaucrat closure) Closed as unsuccessful. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Verifying closure as a crat. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Lugia2453

Lugia2453 (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date: 16:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I’ve been here for nearly four months, and I think I’m ready for adminship. With over 2,800 edits, over half them in mainspace, over 100 created articles and 15 created categories, at least 100 QD tags (almost all, if not all, of my deleted edits come from them, as far as I can tell. Some might also come from deleted reversions of edits that were deleted through revision deletion.), a lot of reverts (a few hundred, from my estimates. I even have a barnstar from Mh7kJ for my work in anti-vandalism.), and good participation in Requests for Deletion, I think I would make a good admin. I also think I would make a good admin because:

1) I’m on every day. I’ve been on every day since I started here, so you’ve likely seen me in recent changes at least once if you've been active here for the past three months.

2) I’m a trustworthy user. I use rollback well, and although I’ve made mistakes with it before, I’ve made sure to fix any mistakes I’ve made. I also haven’t been in any problems since I’ve been here.

3) With me being on every day, I’d make some admin-related tasks quicker. I sometimes find that they can be slow at times. I’d be able to delete bad pages within an hour and a half to an hour of them being created (less than 10 minutes for vandalism and attack pages), be able to clear VIP reports right after users are blocked (from my experience, it can take hours for reports to be cleared. I’ve even cleared reports myself because they weren’t being cleared by admins), and end RFD discussions after 7 days without it taking more than that time to be closed.

Overall, I feel that I have enough experience and trust to be an admin here. I think it would be a great benefit to the community if I were given the admin tools. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination.

Support

1. Support - Despite the issues brought up below, I don't think it would hurt to AGF here. High activity levels, which I can see in Lugia's contributions, are also needed to maintain the growing project. Yottie ^=talk= 17:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support The concerns I brought up are minor, and wouldn't prevent Lugia from doing good admin work. I definitely don't think the "one year and 10,000 edits" is necessary. I've seen Lugia do good work here, and I like the answers given to the questions we asked. There are most likely things Lugia doesn't know yet, but I believe s/he can learn them. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support I don't think 10,000 edit is needed. Salvidrim had just 6000+ edits at en wiki when he/she requested. But s/he passed as s/he knew all the rules. I've seen Lugia's contributions and I haven't found nothing to oppose. Good user, Good contributions. 1 year isn't needed to request for adminship . If user is regular then 3 month is all. Also his/her answers satisfied me. So there's no reason to oppose.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 08:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   For the record, every wiki has their own different standards for adminship; what the English Wikipedia wants has no bearing here. --Rschen7754 23:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

4. Support Per Yottie, Auntof6 and Pratyya Ghosh (above). curtaintoad | chat me! 08:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support No reason to oppose. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
6. I actually haven't seen this user around, but thats no doubt my issue rather than the candidates. I have had a look at the recent contributions and found only positive edits. I also assume your username is the same on en? The length of time there negates the 'too soon' argument for me. Basically, I cannot find any reason to oppose at this time. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Has a good amount of accurate QDs... why are we focusing so much on time alone? Let's actually evaluate this based on the quality of what they did during this time. -- Mentifisto 23:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

   It isn't time that is the issue really, but complete lack of discussion in community processes. I believe when I first looked they had zero edits in wikipedia talk space (ie Simple Talk). One of the most important aspects of being an admin is how they communicate to others and handle discussions. If they haven't had any discussions how can we judge them as being able to be an admin? -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't feel that I really know this editor. Doing the admin role well requires both experience and sound judgement: it is rather early to assess him on these qualities. Bearing in mind that the wiki does not actually need any more mops, I think he should re-apply later. A year on the wiki would be more like it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - not enough tenure here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   Oppose Only around 3,000 changes and four months on this project. Maybe in a year or so, when you have around 10,000. curtaintoad | chat me! 22:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Changed to support.

3. While I do not believe that "we don't need any more admins" is a valid reason to oppose, I do echo Macdonald-ross and Jasper Deng here. This is a bit too soon for me. -Mh7kJ (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
4. I would have to agree with Macdonald-ross here. I didn't even know this editor was an editor here. No experience really in community related discussions. I would say try again in a bit once you have gotten involved in debates so we can see how you handle such situations as that is the most important aspect to being and admin since they have to decide consensus in things like Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Reiterating the concerns of Macdonald-ross and DJ as well as what I said in the other RfA that is currently taking place as well: Administrators have more than the technical tools to deal with abuse. They are also expected to exercise their (fair) judgement in disputes and other community processes. There is a lack of experience in the community processes. Chenzw  Talk  13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
6. I've to agree with my fellows here. Back the time I started here, people usually got the mop after about three months on this wiki. That was about four years ago. I think that people nowadays should be here for much longer, gaining more experience on this wiki and so on. Please re-apply later again. -Barras talk 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
7. This is pretty borderline, but I agree with Macdonald, DJ etc. I feel that a little more experience wouldn't hurt. Do I think Lugia2453 will break the wiki if he gains admin rights? No. But I feel that a bit more experience, particularly in discussions (i.e. Wikipedia space) would be very useful. I don't think someone who has hardly ever participated in community discussions can handle closing banning proposals/controversial RfDs, so I'd like a little involvement in the community. And well, CfA looks a bit outdated - 3 months might be good enough to gain sufficient experience in all parts of the Wiki for some users, but in general, it takes more time to adapt and learn the policies, interact with the community etc. for most users. IMO, it's not a matter of time as it is a matter of experience. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions

• If you become an admin, what do you think you will do most with that authority? What areas of adminship would you be most comfortable handling? What areas would you be least comfortable handling? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Most of my adminship will be dedicated towards deleting bad pages. I've done a lot of QD nominations, and I usually nominate pages within minutes upon them appearing, so what I'll do most is patrol new pages and watch for any bad pages that appear. When I delete them depends on the page. If it's vandalism, nonsense, or an attack page, I'll delete it immediately after seeing. If it's anything else such as having no content, no meaning, or being non-notable, I'll wait around 30 minutes to see if the author improves the article. That's what I'll be most comfortable handling. I'll also be comfortable handling regular blocks. Most of my blocks would if a user vandalizes after a final warning, but I may block earlier if it's something like harassment or death threats, if a registered user has been using their account only for vandalism, if the account/IP is a sockpuppet, or if the username is unacceptable. I'd be least comfortable handling range blocks. Thousands of users may be blocked due to one person's actions. Range blocks should be used if a large amount vandalism is coming from multiple IPs on a single range. One range block I saw was an IP range being blocked due to an IP account to making multiple attack accounts and abusing them on VIP (see the history here for what happened). I happened to be involved in that incident, so that's how I know about it. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• What admin actions have you seen that you would have handled differently, and how would you have handled them? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The range block that I talked about in the last question is what I would have handled differently. Since there was only one IP involved, instead of a range block, I would have blocked the accounts that were made indefinitely and blocked the IP for around two weeks. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Looking at the blocks involved, It took me about 15 seconds to notice you would have made the wrong choice there. Could you re-look at the situation and see if you could notice why this would be? --Creol(talk) 13:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My best contributions are my articles, because they were expansions of areas that needed some expansion. For example, with the Mario Party series, only the first game and the series as a whole had articles, so it was a good idea to add articles on the games as well. My favorite article is the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings one, because it was worked on by not just me, but also a number of other users. It's also my biggest article in terms of length. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• 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?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 07:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have been in one - in fact, it was in my second day here. What happened was that some user kept making a page called LordOfGears2, and when I tried to quick delete it, the user kept removing quick deletion nominations. I kept trying to re-add a nomination, and it got to the point where I made an AFD just so that the article would be noticed and deleted. If this happened again in the future, I would not keep re-adding a nomination, but rather, just let an admin notice it and delete it. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Just a note: we don't have AFD here, we have RFD. I would feel better with admins who kept that straight. Still, I'm leaning toward supporting you here, I just haven't decided yet. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I'll keep that straight in the future; that was just a mistake there. Since I'm on both the English Wikipedia and this one, I just got my deletion discussions confused there, that's all. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• You mention that you can be on "during the day". (I'm assuming you mean in the daytime, as opposed to at night.) I hope you know that we have editors from many places around the world (some I can think of offhand are Australia, Scotland, and the United States), and that therefore "during the day" isn't the same time for all of us. I have a generally positive impression of you, but it concerns me that you might not have a global point of view. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well, I meant during the day in the United States, but it appears that I didn't think about people in other countries when writing my nomination. Don't worry, I do know that there are editors from around the world. I'll go ahead and remove that part. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the recent users who have oppose: in most cases adminship from users are universally unknown to most active users on Wikipedia and are not required to be acquainted with the entire community. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a popularity club where users !vote for users who are more popular or well known in the community. Wikipedia is a consensus-driven site that promotes positive users to contribute to countless vandalism; that's where adminship comes in. This !voting is not about Lugia2453's status here on Wikipedia as a known editor, but if Lugia2453 can be responsible to withstand the given additions of an admin; can Lugia2453 be trustworthy enough to win over the community as an admin is the main focus of this discussion (which is why s/he has given us an introduction of her/his reasoning behind her/his decisions, contributions, work ethic, and her/his ability to understand Wikipedia's general rules, guidelines and polices.) Also, the need of adminship is always in demand, even if the community is relatively small, but the need of hard-working driven admins is always in high demand. However, everyone are entitled to their own opinions; I just felt the need to discuss this situation. Lastly, I am neither supporting and opposing this nomination. Best, jona^{talk to me} 21:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• I just want to note something here - I did this nomination because the criteria for adminship says that the preferred time is three months, and I had seen other users succeed with getting adminship after being here for around three months. It seems like times have changed, and that people want you to be on for at least one year, as noted by some of the oppose votes. If I had known I would be opposed because of this, I would have waited to request adminship. Still, since I have at least one support vote, I'll let this go the full time. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Lugia, I don't know where people are getting the "one year and 10,000 edits" idea. Maybe those are criteria at enwiki, but that doesn't mean they apply here. Maybe someone suggested that a specific editor get to that level based on that editor's contributions, but that wouldn't apply to everyone. I'd be interested to hear, from the editors who have suggested those criteria, where those criteria came from. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The criteria says the minimum is 3 months. However, I would say that a fair number of editors do often suggest you wait closer to a year. 10k edits I don't know about, but I do see a year as being something suggested relatively commonly. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • @Aunt: OK, so our criteria are out of date, as are almost all guidelines on the whole wiki. Since when did we ever get 25 positive votes for a checkuser?! Have we got 25 regular editors?! Commonsense needs to be brought into play. 90% of an admin's role is semi-automatic, but there is a final 10% which requires experience, maturity and judgement. That is why we should be cautious. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually the 25 votes for CU is a WMF requirement we do actually have to have that number. But you are right about the rest of your comment. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a good feeling about this user, she looks pretty good for adminship. --Aaqib Waramchoi (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm actually a male, but thanks for the nice comment. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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.