Lotsofissues (
talk·contribs) – I notice Lotsofissues a lot in Wikipedia, mostly in documenting what media has said about WP. Today I decide to award this user with a barnstar for all the efforts. I looked on the talk page - and its all messed up with notes from anons (as most admins'), but the user page has no indication of admins powers. I glance over the contributions - clean ups, reverts and even more reverts (and no rollback!). I check Kate - 5829 edits (since February 2005)! I check RfA archives - no records. Something must be really wrong, I figure.
Renata19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Renata.
Weak Oppose Did not sign the acceptance of the nomination above with four ~'s; short answers to questions - answer to Q.2 is worrying; more importantly, the only time I ran into him was
here. He appeared gruff, did not direct his views on the guidelines on the talk page, nor did he respond to my query on talk page. Nor is there any clear suggestion from him as to how one can determine apriori if 66% would like a DYK fact - a poor sense of judgement, imo. --
Gurubrahma06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I haven't had a lot of experience with Lotsofissues, but the one experience I do recall showed a significant lack of judgment in my opinion.
Here, Lotsofissues is discussing an attempt to intentionally mislead an employee of
Encyclopedia Brittanica that happened to be poking around asking questions and making comments. This combined with his brevity in responding to questions leads me to oppose at this time.
Dragons flight14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose. I usually don't oppose people I don't really know, but I'm sick and tired of watching people screw around with others in the name of Wikipedia. We've already got an image crisis, don't make it worse, thanks.
Mo0[
talk]
18:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Slight Object His edit count is excellent! He's a great contributor! However, I fail to see the maturity in him that an admin needs. He advertises less than savoury articles such as strip club & porn convention, which I personally take offense to. If he matures a bit, I'll fully support him.
Spawn Man05:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't like campaigning but since you request an explanation, I'll give you one. I tried to deceive the employee from Britannica headquarters because I believe he --or the office-- deserves scornful treatment. I started tracking the user after he tried to hagiographize the
Jacob Safra (Britannica owner) entry. I wrote the article, so his attempt to manipulate the entry upset me. Investigating the IP I found half a dozen cases of vandalism, again, I wasn't pleased but at least I figured I had the moral clarity now to pay him back. So when he asked a suspiscious anonymous question -- he was insistent on getting an answer, hinting once at the possibility of a TOS breach -- I played a trick on him to make him look foolish because I did not like him personally and to subvert whatever he was aiming to do.
Lotsofissues20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I think that is still unacceptable admin behavior. You should take the high road, even with vandals. "Playing tricks" because of "personal dislike" is quite
dickish and undesirable in a Wikipedian, period. ~~ N (
t/
c)
01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I don't know enough about Lotsofissues other work on wikipedia to make this a no, but I do find his interaction on the
Encyclopedia Brittanica issue to be very disturbing. It's important to foster good will other businesses, and this interaction did the exact opposite.
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot02:30, 12 January 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:
A. I prowl for copyright violations and deletion candidates, so I will complete the cleanup of what I formerly dropped off.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've never tried to write a featured article. My work is found wherever cleanup and referencing is needed. My editor niche is in improving the accuracy of what already exists.
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. Only one user
User:Mike Church has been a nuisance. I ignore him now. Thankfully the community reverts his vandalism on my page, so I don't have to engage him.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Lotsofissues (
talk·contribs) – I notice Lotsofissues a lot in Wikipedia, mostly in documenting what media has said about WP. Today I decide to award this user with a barnstar for all the efforts. I looked on the talk page - and its all messed up with notes from anons (as most admins'), but the user page has no indication of admins powers. I glance over the contributions - clean ups, reverts and even more reverts (and no rollback!). I check Kate - 5829 edits (since February 2005)! I check RfA archives - no records. Something must be really wrong, I figure.
Renata19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Renata.
Weak Oppose Did not sign the acceptance of the nomination above with four ~'s; short answers to questions - answer to Q.2 is worrying; more importantly, the only time I ran into him was
here. He appeared gruff, did not direct his views on the guidelines on the talk page, nor did he respond to my query on talk page. Nor is there any clear suggestion from him as to how one can determine apriori if 66% would like a DYK fact - a poor sense of judgement, imo. --
Gurubrahma06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I haven't had a lot of experience with Lotsofissues, but the one experience I do recall showed a significant lack of judgment in my opinion.
Here, Lotsofissues is discussing an attempt to intentionally mislead an employee of
Encyclopedia Brittanica that happened to be poking around asking questions and making comments. This combined with his brevity in responding to questions leads me to oppose at this time.
Dragons flight14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose. I usually don't oppose people I don't really know, but I'm sick and tired of watching people screw around with others in the name of Wikipedia. We've already got an image crisis, don't make it worse, thanks.
Mo0[
talk]
18:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Slight Object His edit count is excellent! He's a great contributor! However, I fail to see the maturity in him that an admin needs. He advertises less than savoury articles such as strip club & porn convention, which I personally take offense to. If he matures a bit, I'll fully support him.
Spawn Man05:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't like campaigning but since you request an explanation, I'll give you one. I tried to deceive the employee from Britannica headquarters because I believe he --or the office-- deserves scornful treatment. I started tracking the user after he tried to hagiographize the
Jacob Safra (Britannica owner) entry. I wrote the article, so his attempt to manipulate the entry upset me. Investigating the IP I found half a dozen cases of vandalism, again, I wasn't pleased but at least I figured I had the moral clarity now to pay him back. So when he asked a suspiscious anonymous question -- he was insistent on getting an answer, hinting once at the possibility of a TOS breach -- I played a trick on him to make him look foolish because I did not like him personally and to subvert whatever he was aiming to do.
Lotsofissues20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I think that is still unacceptable admin behavior. You should take the high road, even with vandals. "Playing tricks" because of "personal dislike" is quite
dickish and undesirable in a Wikipedian, period. ~~ N (
t/
c)
01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I don't know enough about Lotsofissues other work on wikipedia to make this a no, but I do find his interaction on the
Encyclopedia Brittanica issue to be very disturbing. It's important to foster good will other businesses, and this interaction did the exact opposite.
Comments
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot02:30, 12 January 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:
A. I prowl for copyright violations and deletion candidates, so I will complete the cleanup of what I formerly dropped off.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've never tried to write a featured article. My work is found wherever cleanup and referencing is needed. My editor niche is in improving the accuracy of what already exists.
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. Only one user
User:Mike Church has been a nuisance. I ignore him now. Thankfully the community reverts his vandalism on my page, so I don't have to engage him.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.