Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lazylaces

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

Closed per SNOW. —O (说 • 喝) 23:53, 23 September 2007 (GMT)

Final (2/11/0); ended 23:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lazylaces (talk · contribs) - Lazylaces is an editor who started as a vandal, but quickly learned he could put his writing skills to good use. Having created various articles, Lazylaces is a quick learner and writer.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Lazylaces (Talk to me 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: I would be best as a newpage patroller, because I am pretty good at determining notable articles. Also, I could be a vandal blocker/tracker, because as they say: It takes a thief.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions are those that I have put a lot of effort in. Thoise would be the ones that I have the most interest in. If an article is a stub, I would look it up and gather information. I would be careful to steer clear of copyvios.

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: No, I've been pretty good about edit conflicts. About users, yes, some have given me trouble. I'm not going to name names. I've promptly deleted those edits on my usertalk. I will deal with it in a polite manner I once saw on television, Tit for tat. If they're nice, so am I. If they're not, I ignore them.

• See Lazylaces's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Lazylaces: Lazylaces (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lazylaces before commenting.

Support

1. Moral Support - Dureo 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't have any reason to oppose this user and certainly no reason to strongly oppose. Less than 800 edits doesn't concern me at all. As long as the candidate listens to the reasons listed in the oppose section, they should pass the next nomination. Acalamari 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose - Not enough experience, less than 800 edits, most of which to user page and user talk page. Low level of participation, poor edit summary usage, and no significant edits to project space. And answers show no knowledge of what an admin does. LaraLove 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - The candidate's answers, particularly to Q3, makes me uncomfortable. On another note, isn't the title of this RfA incorrect? -WarthogDemon 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. LaraLove 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Repaired. GDonato (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. weak oppose per Q3. GToood editor though--Phoenix 15 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Due to the answer to Q3. Also per LaraLove, not sure the user is familiar with what it is an Admin on Wikipedia does. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Oppose - Lack of experience, answers to questions are terrible and seams to lack knowledge about wikipedia policies. I recommend closing this per WP:SNOW.--Bryson 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree the answers are poor but to say they are "terrible" is a big needlessly harsh, don't you think? -WarthogDemon 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Not trying to be cruel, but is there really a big difference between 'poor' and 'terrible', either way the answers are weak. --Bryson 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose Most of her edits aren't mainspace (user, user talk, warning vandals, etc.). While it is nice to see former vandals turn, ahem, to the good side, his contributions (or lack of them) and the answers to the optional questions above prevent me from voicing my support. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you mean the standard questions? There are no optional questions... -WarthogDemon 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, I do mean standard questions, excuse me. Cheers - IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No, optional is correct. Acalamari 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The standard questions are optional. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose due to the lack of depth answers to the questions. M.^(er) 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Lack of experience, very few mainspace edits. Crassic^(talk) 22:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per lack of experience. Jmlk17 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose doesn't seem ready yet but could be in the future. Ronnotel 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mild Oppose Questions aren't answered in any considerable depth, with question three providing some issues. While it is nice to see that vandals can be changed to useful contributors, I have mild suspicions regarding the user's intentions. With more time to re-establish trust, I'd have no problem with this user's adminship. Liempt 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.