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

Lid[edit]

FINAL (40/0/0); Scheduled to end 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lid (talk · contribs) - Lid has been editing since May 2006. He has worked on a large number of maintenance tasks, including AfD, MfD, vandalism reporting and reversion, and checkuser reports. His mainspace contributions are mostly writing and maintaining articles on professional wresting - an area where vandalism and other editors' lack of knowledge of policy is a common problem. Even in this occasionally-heated environment, Lid is a polite and knowledgeable editor. I think he will make an excellent admin. Tim Vickers 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this candidacy for the nomination of the Admin Party in the current election. –– Lid(Talk) 05:18, 6 November 2007 (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: My major intention would be to focus on new page patrolling and clearing the speedy deletion backlog. I've observed that at the times when I am on the number of admins doesn't seem as great as other times and the new page listing gets hit hard by nonsense pages that slip on by not because of poor adminning but simply because the sheer number of them causes articles to slip through the cracks. Once I went through thirty pages of the new pages log and on every page there was a blatant nonsense page that had simply made its way past the first page and nobody saw it again.
Apart from that articles I myself have tagged for speedy deletion have suffered from the CSD backlog and would like to see it cleaned out. I once tagged four articles for CSD and it wasn't until four days later they were deleted. All of them were blatant vanity/spam/vandalism pages but they kept on existing simply because there wasn't enough man power to clear them out. The CSD backlog has caused the idea of "speedy deletion" to, at points, slow to a crawl and I believe I could help lessen the load.
Apart from that I would sporadically monitor AIV, AN and ANI for people in need of aid.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: There are two sections I would like to differentiate between; contributions to wikipedia the encyclopedia and contributions to wikipedia the community.
In regards to contributions I think my best contribution was the build up of the CM Punk article to FA status which took a long time and was had serious setbacks in the process. It was only the second professional wrestling related FA at its time and had been chosen by me as a project as, when I first started editing, he was only an underground professional wrestler with a large independent following but nothing more. From when I started editing the article to its FA he had since become a mainstream television wrestler and champion but initially the idea started with "pick a complete unknown and write the best possible article on him" and I think I succeeded.
In regards to the community my best contribution, and one I share with admin SirFozzie (talk · contribs), is my vandal fighting against a well known serial-vandal. This fighting has continued until this day and I have, to the best of my knowledge, maintained my composure as best as I can. I would continue but I don't want to give this too much emphasis as per WP:RBI.
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 have been involved in several conflicts, the most recent of which being the Alkivar arbitration case in which I was at one time proposed to become a party due to my previous interactions with Alkivar and Burntsauce. My conflict with these two goes all the way back to when Burntsauce was originally blocked as a sock of JB196 and the later conflict over the application of WP:BLP to deceased people.
I was a large part of the Nigel McGuinness BLP case which is a case that I still think flew too far under the radar and may one day again pursue a decision on. The conflict of this case revolved around when the real name of Nigel McGuinness was discovered and posted in the article which lead to the webmistress of McGuinness' website causing an edit war over its inclusion and finally an edict to have the name removed altogether per an OTRS request. My place in the case was that McGuinness was a public individual, the name was sourced reliably and to me the decision to omit it fel opposite other cases such as Criss Angel, Buckethead and most recently Atze Schröder which have all had the same debate but McGuinness is the only example of wikipedia where sourced factual information has an edict where it can not be included.
I think the most notable conflict I have been part of was the aforementioned case of the serial vandal (which if you want to go back to his original blocking was caused by a revert by me).
The way I have dealt with it is that I have found being rude and yelling during conflicts only serves to lessen your position and people tend to not read your arguments based off merit so instead I aim to simply maintain composure and also not to take things too seriously. Not taking things too seriously and instead to simply accept things as they come leads you to not lose sight of what is important.
4. Optional question from Malinaccier. Upon becoming an admin, how much time would you spend specifically on "admin-related duties" compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Thanks for your time. —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
A: To me I don't see why time spent on both can be concurrent to the situation at the time. I do not tend to edit articles for the sake of editing articles, neither do I see myself sitting monitoring ANI for every post that comes by for the sake of doing that. I do both at the time it needs to be done or when the situation comes past. For this reason the time comparison to me is not one of mutual exclusivity and I see myself as, probably, doing such tasks simultaneously.
I am assuming the question relates, in part, to the idea that once users become admins they neglect the encyclopedia; while this may be true in others I do not see myself doing it as even a normal user I have played with the idea of spending time simply on admin-related housekeeping, such as monitoring ANI, but I have always found myself continuing to edit the encyclopedia by adding free use images, references, fixing spelling errors among others. I believe it is more up to your conclusion whether it seems I put a priority on admin duties or encyclopedia editing as in my eyes I don't do them by a schedule and do each as I feel it is appropriate making a time comparison a daily variable.
5. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 07:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The policy in this regards is first and foremost open a communication with the blocking admin on their talk page to discuss the situation and, preferably, come to an agreement. If that fails whether by lack of consensus or lack of communication the next step is to post your concerns and the situation on ANI (or AN depending on particular circumstances related to time) for a general discussion about the blocking and whether the block should continue or be lifted by your argument (or one that may come up in the course of the discussion).
This is in fact a policy I feel strongly for and in the Alkivar arbitration case I presented evidence of when Alkivar performed an unauthorised unblocking of a user which at the same time was having a block review at ANI that had 100% consensus that the block was warranted. If I were to not adhere to this I would not only be violating a policy that is meant to keep admins from abusing their power based on their opinion, I would also be a hypocrite to my previous criticism of current (and past) admins who have performed out of process unblockings. –– Lid(Talk) 09:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional multipart question from User:Carlossuarez46:
6. You mention that want to work in WP:CSD, but you haven't tagged many articles for speedy deletion, so I want to get your take on the following examples to see if they are to your mind speedy candidates:
A.: Joe Blow was a dedicated head master of Local High School for 10 years before his untimely death from cancer. He mentored many students and kept from dropping out.
A: Candidate under A7,
B. Jane Doe is the Mary Smith professor of literature at Local Community College.
A: Not evnough information for me to make a conscious decision; professors aren't inherently notable and they would need to fulfill WP:PROF, unless the fact they were a professor was incidental. Can't answer this one yet.
C. Fluffy was a nice pet who saved her family when a fire destroyed there home by waking them up, thiw was covered in the Local Newspaper, on XX/XX/2007, page 3. Fluffy had to be put down yesterday.
A: Not a speedy candidate but would not survive AfD as only animals in extreme incidents maintain their articles (see Rose (goat))
D. XYZ is the new self-released album from the Local Garage Band (article for which has just been speedied by another admin as A7). It's really a great album, lots of YouTube downloads, and the tracks are listed here: -------.
A: Speedy delete candidate; If the band article does not fulfill the notability criteria their albums can not fulfill the notability criteria regardless of the album quality or youtube downloads (see: The Protomen)
E. ABCDEF is a poem by Henry Bashford.
A: Not speedy delete; Henry Bashford is a notable writer and poet thus his works have some inherent notability.

Carlossuarez46 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from Hdt83
7. The ignore all rules policy is can be very confusing to editors on Wikipedia, especially to newbies. How do you interpret the meaning of this policy and why?
A. I interpret IAR as to mean that if a rule is actively preventing the encyclopedia from improving or is causing articles quality to be decreased then the rule can be ignored. What this means is not a free pass to anarchy in the face of a content dispute but rather to make the wikipedia policies not wikipedia laws that are unbending or breakable.
The spirit of the rules is something that must be taken into account over the exact word of the rules if what the rule means to do and what the rule causes if interpretation of the rule on its exact phrasing is something either unintended or detrimental to the encyclopedia then it should be looked over for the spirit of the rule.
8. What action do you take when you encounter a speedy deletion request like the one below?
A. WP:NOT has never been a speedy deletion reason and can never be simply the reason for an articles speedy deletion, however this is not to say if someone states their reason as WP:NOT it does not mean the article does not fall under a speedy deletion criteria. For example if the WP:NOT citation was meant to represent an article that was essentially "Hi my name is Joan and im 14 fromz baYs HiL:L" etc. the WP:NOT citation would be WP is not a web host, WP is not a social networking site and WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information but all fall under the speedy deletion criteria of A7. Even as the speedy deletion reason is, by the rules, incorrect, under IAR the article will not be saved as it is actively useless to the encyclopedia and its existance is detrimental to the encyclopedia with its only saving grace being someone listed it for speedy deletion incorrectly.
I will admit I have, in the past, wrote speedy deletion reasons based off WP:NFT to articles that say things like "CRAZY WAFFLING; me and my friend jim made up this new game that sees a ball be thrown against the back of strangers and then hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat". While NFT is not a speedy deletion reason the articles are a violation of the spirit of A7 and would be an uncontroversial deletion at AfD.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As nominator. Tim Vickers 05:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First Support (not counting nominator's support) Good number of mainspace and project space edits. NHRHS2010 talk 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - as per good candidate. Rudget Contributions 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Per the nom. Politeness, in the face of the heated and vandalism prone topics this editor works in, is to be admired. And Lid has also shown good editing/writing skills, helping to improve the quality of articles. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Support - Calm, cool, collected, straight to the point. Based on that, I expect his mop handling skills to not display any twirls, dancing, or drama. spryde | talk 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Thanks for answering my question. Good editing overall. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No issues here:) Cheers!--SJP 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, I have no doubt that Lid could benefit from the tools, especially in vandal fighting, and would not abuse them. Nikki311 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support hop aboard...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Meets my standards. No evidence would abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Understands policy, sensible voice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. good candidate. Kingturtle 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support He is a great editor and his civility must be commended as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--MONGO 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support You've done some great work. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support — I am confident this user will use the tools in a responsible manner. --Haemo
  18. Support good answers to my questions. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Responses to the questions indicate that this user has a strong knowledge of how Wikipedia works and can be trusted with the tools. --Hdt83 Chat 04:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per Tim's nom as well as Curt's reasoning, and the fact that this is just a really good editor, and adminship is really no big deal. K. Scott Bailey 04:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. per q8User:Veesicle 16:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - trustworthy candidate. Addhoc 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Of course. Acalamari 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Jmlk17 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support east.718 at 06:05, 11/9/2007
  27. Support Phgao 06:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. This is a Secret account 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - good editor, lots of experience, why not. — xDanielx T/C 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - good answers to the questions, good record. Sense of humour :) Should be just fine! - Alison ❤ 05:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -- Jack is celebrating his birthday! 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -- Quality contributions, civil, and highly unlikely to abuse the tools. Bmg916Speak 17:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support -- LAX 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - definately. Brilliant candidate. :-) Lradrama 18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -- Davnel03 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support John254 03:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I would like to come out of my silence at the RfAs (chiefly to avoid disputes - that's why I don't usually participate) to express my support for Lid. His good handling of incidents have been clearly displayed in many areas. So that's why I want to support Lid for adminship. I can also see that he/she can also actively pursue repetitive tasks (such as adding categories without the use of AWB) without 'messing up' (like I often do), so I think Lid would not abuse tools such as AWB. I'm starting to think I should comment here more frequently! Well done. Auroranorth (!) 12:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - looks like a good user. Good user's usually make good admins. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category