Kommunal.az

Closed, vote was (15/9/2)

It has been about three months since my last RfA, and I want to try again for adminship. I am not the kind of person that I was before that was obsessed with adminship. Now I welcome a lot of newcomers, revert a lot of vandalism, and if I become an administrator, I will delete nonsense pages, and block vandals.

I have made approximately 2150 edits; but the number might be inaccurate because some edits were to correct my own spelling mistakes that I made before.

I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for voting... --Lst27 19:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. I must agree that there has been a marked improvement in Lst's behaviour. I support. — David Remahl 22:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. ‘"This should be no big deal," as Jimbo has said.’ (per Wikipedia:Administrators). Recent edits would appear to be good admin material. [[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. I'd have nominated him myself; he's a good editor and committed to the project, so he ought to be an admin by now. Everyking 22:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. He expressed interest to me in being nominated last week, but I was so busy that I didn't respond to his email or recommend him. I would have, however. I support. Mike H 22:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
5. Andre 22:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6. Jwrosenzweig 22:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lst has done exactly what we asked....honestly, I'm sorry I didn't nominate Lst27 myself. Even if Lst is Alex, he's behaved the way we said Alex needed to, and I see no evidence that any of Alex's accounts are still around that would make Lst a sockpuppet if Lst is Alex (and I suspect Lst isn't).

   How did you say he needs to behave? Did you tell him he should create a new identity, deny being Alex, and try not to get caught? I thought he was told to come clean, say he's sorry, and go on editing without request adminship all the time. Gzornenplatz 00:10, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

   At this point, I think we'd all like to forget the Alex fiasco -- Alex included. I don't think this is Alex. But if Alex is back, under any name, it's not vital to me that he tie himself to his old name -- only that he behave like a good Wikicitizen. That's all I ever asked of him. And again, I don't think this is Alex. Jwrosenzweig 00:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

7. -- orthogonal 23:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) i find JwRosenweig's argument compelling (and similar to mine re: Anarion, but I will not ask for royalties)
   • You released the argument under the GFDL -- I figured it was fair use. ;-) Jwrosenzweig 23:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
8. VV 00:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't know the whole matter, but even if this is Alex<removed>, is this anything more than a power game at this point? No other notable issues with this user have been raised.

   I don't know what's a "notable issue" for you, but that someone's whole purpose seems to be getting adminship and is willing to lie to everyone to get it seems notable to me. Gzornenplatz 00:10, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

   • Calm down Gzornenplatz. Please remeber, there has been no community ruling stating that Lst27 has lied. Theres is only speculation at this point and I think your comming precariously close to violating No personal attacks. -JCarriker 00:20, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

   My comment was made on the assumption that he's Alex, in which case he clearly lied by saying he is not - and VeryVerily said that there was no issue for him even if it is Alex. If the issue is just whether it's in fact Alex, I'm sure I could assemble good enough evidence - but here people seem to say they wouldn't oppose even if it is Alex, which I think is a dangerous lowering of standards, especially considering that once someone is made sysop they can not be voted out again. Gzornenplatz 00:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

9. I agree with Chmod007. --MerovingianTalk 04:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
10. Snowspinner 04:35, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
11. I don't estimate any evil from him. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 15:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
12. Jayjg 16:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
13. Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
14. assume good faith --Jiang 07:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
15. ugen64 19:18, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) - too many good people have been refused for adminship forbad reasons (ahem Mydogategodshat)

Oppose

1. Gzornenplatz 22:25, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. uc 19:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose. RickK 22:18, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
5. Very strongly oppose. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6. Oppose. See comments section for reasons. SWAdair | Talk 09:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. --avnative 10:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Not a bad user as such, but the same old issues still remain. Ambi 10:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose--BCorr|Брайен 15:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:57, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
2. Xiaopo ℑ 17:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• If people would refrain from commenting in-line with the votes, both the vote and the discussion will be a lot easier to follow. Some brave sole may want to refactor the above comments, but I won't. — David Remahl 00:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Last self-nomination failed 3-11, and not because he didn't have enough edits or anything like that. I don't see anything substantial having changed in this case. And "I am not the kind of person that I was before that was obsessed with adminship" is a ridiculous comment to make in a request for adminship. Also this seems to be an implicit admission that he was indeed Alex <removed> (the person who obsessively tried getting adminship), which he categorically denied in his last nomination under the name Lst27. So if he lied like that less than three months ago, he is not ready for adminship now. Gzornenplatz 22:25, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

  People do change... Andre 22:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  But he hasn't. He needs to come clean about his previous identities, apologize for the lies, and then wait a substantial time before he can be considered (otherwise he would just make a fake apology to get adminship). Gzornenplatz 22:36, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

  What do you mean? --Lst27 22:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Believe me. I have shown more than enough evidence that I am not the same person as [[User:Alex<removed>]]. I am Nan from Guilderland Center, New York, not Alex <removed> from somewhere in Virginia.

  • User:Perl claims to be Alex <removed>. Perl is an adminstrator at the Maori WP, and they must have felt the user could be trusted. In light of this, the question of Is Lst27 Alex <removed>? seems quite moot. Why would Perl admit to being Alex <removed>, only to come back as Lst27. That wouldn't make any sense. -JCarriker 22:58, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

  The Maori WP is a nonentity, he just asked a developer and was made admin there, without even speaking Maori, and consequently never doing anything useful there. It was apparently a clever trick to get adminship on Meta, which at that time was given to anyone who's an admin on any wiki. And Perl only admitted being Alex <removed> after it was proven beyond reasonable doubt - and since he couldn't get adminship with that identity, he invented a new one, as he did so often before. What doesn't make sense there? Gzornenplatz 23:16, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with my nomination? I am not the same person as Alex<removed>. -- User:Lst27

  Just one month ago Lst27 stated on his user page: "I really, really, really wanted to become an administrator of this site. I sought adminship twice, and both times it failed. I am losing interest in this project, and will go away for a while and come back later, when there is a better chance for adminship." Is someone whose whole pursuit here seems to be getting adminship a suitable candidate for it? Gzornenplatz 23:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• I don't trust a person who, in the recent past, wrote I really, really, really wanted to become an administrator of this site and is seeking adminship again now. If User:Lst27 doesn't really, really, really want to become an admin, let him/her wait for someone else's nomination. Really, really, really wanting adminship is evidence of weak judgement, and User:Lst27's other contributions don't give me any more confidence. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • This is really, really, really irrelevant. So what if someone wants to be an admin? Is that so unreasonable? You're not even asking why; maybe he really, really, really wants to help. VV 22:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  When I started using Wikipedia, I really really really wanted to be an admin, and now I am. Do you think I have bad judgment? --MerovingianTalk 09:15, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

  Reread what I wrote above & draw your own conclusions. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  The I am gone for now, but might come back later bit [1] doesn't inspire confidence. If a person gets bent out of shape and leaves in a huff, they're not admin material. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Better to leave than to blow up at someone and stay. Besides, I think that "not admin material" qualification there is purely rubbish to me. Mike H 14:29, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

  Better still to keep a level head. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  But we are all human, are we not? Mike H 21:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

• I oppose because:
  1. I am skeptical of self-nominations, particularly those likely to be controversial. Prospective admins should find someone willing to nominate them, and in controversial cases, would do well to get a longstanding and widely respected member of the community to nominate them.
  2. There is the appearance that Lst27's participation here has been primarily for the purpose of obtaining adminship.
  3. Adminship is a de facto lifetime appointment at Wikipedia with no effective review priviledge, and I am unsure of Lst27's motives
  4. Adminship is not intended to be a reward, instead it exists to further Wikipedia's purposes.
  5. While Lst27 has made many good contributions, the contributions have for the most part been mechanical (e.g. welcoming new users or adding articles like this). I have not seen as much insightful, carefully written material (either in articles or talk pages) as I would like.
  6. I remain concerned about some of the past events mentioned by others above.

uc 19:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One Wikipedia downside/feature is that everyone can read everything that has ever been on someone's user page. The relevance of this is that Lst27, formerly someone who really really really wanted adminship, has changed in a month, and his user page has changed as well. Now we can read Lst27's old user page, but we can't vote against the old Lst27, just the current Lst27. The current Lst27 has realized that writing that really really really wanting adminship is bad. Just because he used to should not count against him. –Andre (talk) 19:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andre, it is my considered opinion that people's motives and character traits don't change much in a month. In some cases, over the course of six months to a year, or more, they may change, though even that is rare. People do acquire knowledge and learn group norms in shorter periods of time, but changes to motives and character traits are slow. uc 16:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's if you're gullible enough to believe him. But if you do some research and look into all the lies Alex <removed> has previously presented, you would not believe any word he says, especially when he contradicts his words by his very action of requesting adminship! If he really were no longer obsessive about it, maybe he should prove it by not asking for it, don't you think? Gzornenplatz 19:52, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well I admit it's suspicious. What exactly is your link between Lst27 and Alex<removed>? And as for being obsessed with adminship, wanting it is different than being obsessive about it. –Andre (talk) 20:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you read carefully through the previous nominations of A<removed>/Alexandros/Greenmountainboy/Sennheiser/Perl/Lst27 (not necessarily complete list: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), and you should get an unmistakable impression of that person. There have always been skeptics. Particularly funny is a comment by Raul, a respected user but look how wrong he was there: on a nomination of "Greenmountainboy" someone asked "Are you Alexandros?" and Raul said: "He's not. First, Alexandros and he have talked on Greenmountainboy's talk page. Second, by looking at "their" pages, they are interested in very different subjects. Third, their edit styles are completely different - greenmountainboy makes 10 edits in a row to an article, while Alexandros makes one or two substantive ones." Of course, Greenmountainboy later admitted being Alex (their accounts are now united as Alex<removed>). Apparently Raul couldn't imagine that Alex would "talk to himself" to fool people. Yet here again there are some who either don't realize it's him or think he's OK now - after all, he says he's no longer his former obsessive self. (Yeah, and less than a month after saying that, he applies for adminship!)

What some like Jwrosenzweig appear to be doing seems to me like the behaviour of parents who, when their child is begging for something long enough, will ultimately grant it just to have their peace. So the idea is "just give Alex the damn adminship and we can put an end to all this nonsense". I think that's not only wrong on principle but it also wouldn't be the end of it. It would only be the beginning. Judging by his previous behaviour he seems unstable and would almost certainly abuse sysop powers, and we all know there's no option of voting someone out again. I quote Angela from January: "Perhaps we just need a better de-sysopping policy then so we don't need to be so wary about making people sysops in the first place. Currently, even where a majority feel someone should be desysopped, there is no process for making that happen." Indeed, and that process is still not there, so we cannot take chances.

And for those who are not convinced it's Alex, they may just look at the Lst27 nominations - that's enough bizarre behaviour in itself: soon after coming here, he started supporting virtually everyone on RfA in order to later gain their vote in return (it certainly worked with MikeH [13]), no matter how obviously unqualified (previous Alex incarnations did the same thing, by the way), and for the same reason he is welcoming tons of people (in fact that's about 90% of what he's doing lately), which is designed to leave a good impression with people who may not even realize it's a boilerplate [14]. Gzornenplatz 23:53, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I supported those people because they deserved to be supported. I am a really easy kind of person, and support people easily. But, when someone too new (i.e. has only been here for a month), I don't support them. I usually vote oppose. But my votes to support is absolutely not to later gain their vote in return. Also, as I have said soooooo many times before, I am not Alex<removed>. --Lst27 00:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, could you stay away from the implicit accusation that MikeH is trading favors with Lst27? MikeH left the same message, or something similar, to just about everyone who voted to support his adminship (quite a bit of work, considering that was 64 people). It's a friendly thank you, not in the least a promise of "I'll vote for you if you vote for me." Whether I agree with MikeH or not on this page, in my observation he always considers nominations on their merits. --Michael Snow 00:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I was planning on nominating him myself, which should put the "get a respected user to nominate you" crap thing to rest. I just didn't have the time and I was very busy. Mike H 05:09, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

• I just spent the last hour and a half reviewing and comparing a lot of edits. I reviewed the nomination history provided by Gzornenplatz (above), checked editing patterns of Lst27 vs other incarnations, compared writing styles, sentence length, grammar, etc. Combined with the repeated self-nominations, I am convinced that Lst27 is Alex and may have temporarily changed his ways for the sole purpose of getting something he really, really, really wants. Even if I am wrong about Lst27=Alex, this edit from 11 MAY would, on its own, cause me to oppose for some time to come. Assuming good faith is a very good rule of thumb. The evidence convinces me that doing so in this case would be unwise. I must oppose. SWAdair | Talk 09:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I'd really like to assume good faith, but can't for two reasons (1) The famous problem of having no effective means of de-adminship and (2) The fact that "assume good faith" has been abused by A<removed> before:

"You should assume good faith and look at Principle Of First Trust and Iterated Prisoners Dilemma. Green Mountain 19:18, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)" (quoted by Xiaopo)

On the other hand, if he really isn't A<removed>, I'd really hate voting against him, and I'm not sure what options he has if he really has been falsely accused of being A<removed>. So I'm of two minds on this. --Xiaopo ℑ 17:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)