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

Lankiveil[edit]

Final: (94/2/0); ended 01:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lankiveil (talk · contribs) - I am submitting Lankiveil for consideration for adminship. Why he didn't get nominated before is anyone's guess. Lankiveil has been editing longer than most of us here (myself included), since August 2004. Since then, he has made around 7000 edits. Lankiveil never fails to be polite and friendly (as evidenced by the Mr. Bibliomaniac15 [1] on my talk). He is capable of explaining his opinion and motives well, as evidenced by his editor review, his admin coaching (which I regrettably didn't do much with), and his numerous contributions to AFD. Lankiveil is fully aware of our policies regarding vandalism and deletion. Although he has not written a GA or an FA, Lankiveil is active in cleaning up and adding citations. In short, I believe that Lankiveil is experienced and mature enough to serve us well as an administrator. bibliomaniac15 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am co-nominating Mr. Lankiveil, an editor who I have been working closely with for a very long time. He's hardworking, capable, friendly, knowledgeable, and is here to build an encyclopedia. As well as creating a stack of articles (see userpage), he's also helped to add to, and clean up, others, as well as participating in AfDs and vandal reverting. In short, he's dabbled in plenty of areas around the place, gotten some good experience, but is still here to build an encyclopedia. The tools will make it easier to do that, so let's give them to him. —Giggy 12:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I'd like to thank Biblio and Giggy for their kind statements, and gratefully accept their nomination. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:21, 24 August 2008 (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: Initially, I'd plan to work in the areas that I am most familiar with, most notably processing and closing XfD debates, and working with pages up for speedy deletion. As time progressed, I would probably be interested in working in other areas that looked interesting to me, or any admin tasks that developed a backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've created what I feel are useful articles on a couple of fairly obscure topics (such as Section 44 of the Australian Constitution, Australia–Zimbabwe relations and Carl Wilhelm Schmidt). I've been a major contributor to Brisbane and Nundah, Queensland. In addition to this, I've worked on backlogs cleaning up poor markup, sifting articles into categories, and doing other miscellaneous Wikignome edits, each of which is valuable in its own way. I also have a soft spot for Cricket in Iceland, my attempt to write a fully sourced article on something that barely exists.
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: Anyone who has been on Wikipedia long enough has had some conflicts, but I'm pleased to say those that I have been in have been relatively minor. There has been the odd content dispute, but usually my approach has been to stay calm, look at the problem through the other party's eyes (to make sure that I am not the one at fault), attempt to talk the problem through rationally, and to bring in a neutral and mutually acceptable third party if that doesn't work. I'm not a very incendiary sort of person, but if I feel myself getting a bit frustrated by a conflict, my usual reaction is to step back and cool off rather than heat the situation up any further.
4. Optional question from Beeblbrox : How long do you think it will take for the same 10 boilerplate questions everyone gets lately are added to your RFA?
A. Not too long, I suspect!

Standard optional question from NuclearWarfare

5. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
A. If I felt that the community as a whole had lost faith in me or trust in me to use the tools in a responsible fashion, I would voluntarily suspend myself until the issue had been resolved, whether through reconfirmation or some other manner. As an example, if I were taken in front of ArbCom on grounds relating to misuse of the tools, I would be happy to be temporarily desysopped until ArbCom could make a permanent ruling.

Optional question from Useight

6. You've been around since 2004 and have edited in 49 consecutive months. Over that long span of time, have you noticed any substantial changes in the Wikipedia community and if so, what was it (or "were they", if you want to mention multiple). Do you feel these changes were good for Wikipedia?
A. This is a pretty sticky question, and I certainly don't think of my self as a veteran or an elder or anything along those lines - there are certainly others around here who have more insight on this and have had more experience and seen more on Wikipedia than I have. With that said, the biggest change I've noticed in the community is that we're becoming an increasingly diverse bunch. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. It's good because it leads to new points of view, reduces (but does not eliminate) the problem of systematic bias, and generally makes it a more interesting project to work on. However, it also means that consensus is often more difficult to reach due to the diversity of strongly held views, not to mention that it is increasingly impossible for a single editor to keep on top of all the shifting social currents and to be acquainted with everybody.

Question from John Sloan (talk)

7. This is normally xeno's RfA question, but I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A. Given the extensive history of abusive language and vandalism, and the fact that the user continued to vandalise after the solitary constructive effort, it would be difficult in the extreme to assume good faith to a point that I'd be comfortable in unblocking them. However, I would at the same time not decline such a request from a user that I had myself blocked. Instead I would leave it for another uninvolved admin to judge and make a call on. In the worst case scenario for the end-user, they'll only have to wait a week anyway to be allowed to edit, and they can contribute constructively then.

Optional questions from Townlake

8. If you noticed me and another editor in a tendentious edit war over the Cricket in Iceland article, will increasingly inappropriate comments flying across our talk pages, what are the chances you would give either or both of us a cool down block?
A. If you and another editor got into a tendentious edit war over that particular article, I'd be very impressed that you and another person actually managed to find some material to disagree on! More seriously though, I would not be handing out CDBs, as I agree with the general assessment that they usually do more to heat a situation up than cool it down. If the inappropriate comments on the talk pages crossed the line (per WP:BLOCK), then I might hand out some blocks, but I would attempt to calm both parties down and mediate before I started breaking out the tools.
9. Do you believe articles should ever be speedily deleted from Wikipedia under the rationale of ignore all rules? Townlake (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. I suppose you might be able to construct a particular hypothetical scenario where ignoring the CSD guidelines would be the best way to improve the encyclopædia, but generally speaking, no. The CSD criteria are pretty good, I feel, and I personally will be going "by the book" in applying them.

Optional questions from DGG (talk)

10. Do you intend to close AfDs on topics where you have a strong opinion in general about the notability or desirability of the articles in general? DGG (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A I do not intend to avoid such topics, but I will not seek them out either. I don't see that this will be a problem, because I don't intend to close an AfD as "delete" (or any other outcome), unless there is a clear and unambiguous consensus to do so, per the deletion policy. I feel that I won't have any problem separating my personal feelings about such articles from the job of impartially determining consensus.
Myself, I decided to avoid such topics entirely, knowing that I sometimes had firm opinions that were not generally shared, and not wanting to take the chance that my judgement in those areas might, in spite of every good intention, still somewhat tend to reflect my own opinion. DGG (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly respect such a decision if you choose to make it, and if many of my closures on a given topic start getting overturned at DRV, then I guess I will have to look at this again, but seeing as I've been able to write what I hope are impartial biographies of people I don't particularly care for, and because my real-life job demands impartiality, I am very confident that I won't have any problems of that type. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
11. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
A: Again from the original question #9, I believe that you might be able to construct a hypothetical scenario where it would be acceptable to ignore the WP:BLOCK policy and issue one. However, I struggle to think of what such a scenario might entail. I do not see myself ever issuing a CDB, again, because I agree with the reasoning that they usually only serve to inflame the situation, which is not something that I want to do.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

12. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: This is another tricky one, and from the information in the example you gave, its hard to make a call one way or the other without knowing additional information, for instance, whether the article in question is a BLP, whether the sourcing is reliable, etc etc. Generally speaking, and without underemphasising the importance of consensus, I would have to say that in my view verifiability comes out with its nose slightly in front, when it comes to importance, particularly in situations where people may be adversely affected by something unverifiable written here.
13. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: I don't know about "annoyed", but one particular situation I gained a lot of satisfaction from was performing an article rescue on Everett Gendler, an article that had been created by a new user and immediately had a CSD A7 tag put on it. The new user who had created the article certainly seemed as if he felt that had been a good experience.
Another case was with User:Peter phelps, who initially came on pushing an agenda concerning a high profile Australian politican, and he certainly seemed annoyed at being reverted. To salvage the situation, I listened carefully to what he had to say, agreed with him on a number of issues when he had a point, and worked with him on a separate article as a show of good faith. Not only did the user drop the invective and start contributing positively, but we also got a much improved Gary Nairn out of the whole thing as well.
14. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: I intend to use the tools to supplement, rather than replace my current activities.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. First support! I trust this user, and with a nomination from Biblio and Giggy, I can't oppose! -- iMatthew T.C. 01:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. naerii 01:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You obviously understand the purpose of the encyclopedia. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 01:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Wow, this is a really obvious one. I trust this user with the tools. X! who used to be Soxred93 02:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Definitely - A veteran who clearly knows what he's doing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support The obligatory "I thought you already were one" vote. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Trustworthy. No reason not to support. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Easy one. Good luck. :) GlassCobra 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Trustworthy Steven Walling (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Good Suppourt'He seems accomplished and edxperienced, and seems like a hard worker,--Master of Pies (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yay. —Giggy 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Contributions: + Answers: = Support. Macy 04:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I did a thorough ER of this user and was very impressed, especially with his great interpersonal skills. delldot talk 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support- assumed Lankiveil was already an admin. Reyk YO! 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support- erm....was going to say something witty but nothing came to mind...so I won't...looks good, will do fine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support whenever I've read what he's written he's been great, and his contributions + question answers are great too Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I would most definitely trust this user with the tools. His contributions and interactions with other users have both been very good. Rje (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support yes, of course. Knows what it takes to build an encyclopedia, and has the ability to do it. Also per nom :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 11:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Yay an article editor! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 11:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Seems like a great editor, polite and doing tedious tasks without complaining. That's what an admin should be! SoWhy 11:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per the fantastic answer to Q7 and the fact that I can see this user going on to become one of the best sysops on this project. :-) John Sloan (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Hello, I'm here to sign up for the Do-It-Yourself Liposuction class, and I...oh, wrong queue. While I am here: Support. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Supported. A trustworthy contributor. This is way overdue. Moondyne 14:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm supporting this user. I've seen him around in a variety of namespaces, including, refreshingly, the (main). He should do splendidly as an admin. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - bumped into the user in the past, and even though the answers to the questions are a tad bare, I have no doubt the user won't go insane as an admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Aye - no-brainer. (My vote, not the candidate). Black Kite 16:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, no problems here. Tan ǀ 39 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I trust Lankiveil with the administrator tools, and furthermore think he will be competent in his use of them. That he has such solid article space experience is an added bonus that "seals the deal" for me. Good luck, Anthøny 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. He's experienced and civil. Knows policy. Somewhat lacks communication in the realm of Wikipedia Talk, but I think he'll be a fine admin. Useight (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Concur with the above. Candidate is a dedicated editor whose skill and level-headedness will be an asset as an administrator. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Definitely. LittleMountain5 review! 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Hello, I'm here to take Ecoleetage home as he seems to be lost again. Ah, there he is. Oh, while I'm here, I support Lankiveil completely.    SIS  00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--LAAFan 02:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - from interaction alone and leaving the questions/contributions aside - every sense a candidate for the task of coping with the likes of most of the voters here without any difficulty (since when was presence on talk a virtue?) SatuSuro 03:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support oh-no another Autralian as an admin. I've only had and observed good interactions with other editors, happy to trust with tools. Gnangarra 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support This should have happened a long time ago. Vastly overqualified for the position. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I am a little hesitant to give admin responsibility to a fiendish Harkonnen, but I guess we shouldn't rule out everyone from the ice planet of Lankiveil. In all seriousness, I remember Lankiveil form my days at AfD and even back in those days this user was a respected veteran who could always be trusted for their thoughtful opinions in deletion debates. --Leivick (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at least the Harkonnens from my namesake planet were at least a little bit less fiendish than the ones from Giedi Prime. Some of them were even downright nice! Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support Have seen this user a lot, he interacts well with others, is responsible and contributes well to community debates. Meets my criteria easily. Orderinchaos 07:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support a good candidate --Stephen 05:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I trust the editors and the noms! America69 (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support net benefit to the project.Gazimoff 10:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support — Very obviously qualified, able, and ready. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. He will make a good admin. As others have said, he can be trusted and knows the ropes. --Bduke (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support — the obligatory "I thought you already were an admin" sentiment here =) sephiroth bcr (converse) 11:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support, a great Wikipedian, and I've seen a good early opinions at AFD which is unusual as ppl who vote early at Afd are usually not engaging their brain very much, but .. please do go easy on the AFDs as LGRdC does have a point (this time?) that you're often voting delete on the borderline topics. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Absolutely Nice to see you accept the nomination. Will be happy to welcome you to your next stage at the project.--VS talk 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Aye MBisanz talk 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Dlohcierekim 13:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Giggy co-nominated. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - no reason found not to, per nom --T-rex 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Yes, simple as that. nancy (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I'm always surprised when I see an admin show up at RFA, proving that I was wrong in my earlier perception. Keeper ǀ 76 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support thought he already was :P —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Simple choice. user:Everyme 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Excellent editor. Acalamari 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Thought you already were one! Good luck! --Cameron* 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Perusing Lankiveil`s contributions shows no areas of concern, and I also like his answers to the questions above. As such, it is my pleasure to Support this member of the "Obscure Dune Username" club! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I dug through his "wikipedia" namespace contributions from January to April. Seemed to be knowledgeable and helpful. Works in portal and project space as well! Protonk (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Excellent candidate, more than capable. — Athaenara ✉ 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Highly competent and trustworthy editor. CIreland (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Per the noms and AGK (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I trust bibliomaniac15's assessment. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Seems experienced and well qualified. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - a bit late in the day seeing this is overwhelmingly going to pass, but I may as well throw in two cents. An excellent editor, consistently civil and with a genuine interest in improving content and a detailed understanding of the machinery behind it. Fine by me.Euryalus (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Experienced and sensible. Axl (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Another Australian Wikipedian who can be labelled as professional. - Darwinek (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Watched Lankiveil's contributions for a long time. Steady, clueful, trustworthy - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Looks good. Good answer to question 9. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. A solid and balanced record of mainspace and projectspace contributions, good understanding of WP policies. Nsk92 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Unless the eventual answer to Q10 comes back completely off-the-wall, I can see no reason why this excellent candidate shouldn’t be given the mop. Cheers —Travistalk 02:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Pending answer to Q10.  Asenine  02:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - meets my standards. I must disagree with Le Grande Roi (whom I respect greatly); I don't see this editor's delete "votes" at AfD to be a major issue for me. Quickly scanning that list, I would agree with Lankiveil on many of those discussions, for which he did cite policies in many of the examples given. I dread arguing in favor of deleting anyone's hard work, but many of those articles did not meet our standards. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Trustworthy user. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Your distinctiveness will be added to our own. Tiptoety talk 00:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I daresay our ranks will be too small to hold him. :) bibliomaniac15 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support per Giggy's ringing endorsement. User has a strong history of good and fair editing. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per some interaction with Lankiveil on Australia related topics. Nothing particular stands out in my mind as amazing, but also no negative interactions. TravellingCari 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support I see no reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per nom and article work. Q's 11 and 12 are especially impressive (I see that Kurt hasn't entered his trademark oppose...so far, anyway!). For what it's worth, I thought Lankiveil was already an admin. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. I trust this user.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - flawless nomination from what I can see, and this speaks volumes not just for the candidate, but for the nominators too. ;) I'm sure you'll make the entire community proud, so all I can say is: best wishes and good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, yes please. Neıl ☄ 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain't That Life (album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-3 Long Range Strike Platform, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Stockman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beltar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuut-Riit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destrachan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignika, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhikan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Degrassi-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local children's television series (United States), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Dog (Dungeons & Dragons), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuevo Rico (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyluth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possessionless (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Emmeria ... actually, you seem to be a well rounded editor and I don't see a major reason to withhold the mop and bucket. seicer | talk | contribs 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are all reasons to oppose. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try forgiveness... user:Everyme 21:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong support per Seicer. AniMate 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support an experienced and sensible user. Cenarium Talk 00:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support; evidently well-suited to the job.  Sandstein  08:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - the contribution history and answers are satisfactory. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support – I'm suitably impressed. .. dave souza, talk 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Pile on support; this user should be in the [[Category:Editors everybody expected were already admins]]. — Coren (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Switching to weak oppose maybe even neutral following a nice discussion off-wiki with the candidate (he did NOT for the record canvass me to switch my stance, just merely explained some things in a civil and respectful manner; I am changing on my own accord). Although I am trying to avoid Wikipedia due to some real life matters I need to focus on working out, which is why I blanked my userspace and requested they be protected, I had a nice enough off-wiki discussion with the candidate that I felt compelled to log back on briefly today (of course, y'all may not see me again after this edit for quite some time as I must continue work out my real life concerns) and am persuaded that he seems more open-minded to compromises (like merges with regards to these fiction articles) that below diffs from the past suggest, is trying to avoid use of "cruft", and that he takes criticism with a mature and open-mind. So, kudos to him. Please also note that I originally strongly opposed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain't That Life (album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-3 Long Range Strike Platform, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Stockman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beltar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuut-Riit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destrachan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignika, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhikan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Degrassi-related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local children's television series (United States), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Dog (Dungeons & Dragons), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuevo Rico (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyluth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possessionless (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Emmeria, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satisfied (album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Moon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Colony ARK, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Eisenberg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercheats, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character appearances, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terran Alliance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Eye in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbeeg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii System Software, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanatos (Star Wars), i.e. overly aggresive deletionism that is actually FAR more of a concern than any other admin candidate whom I recently opposed (and WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN style "arguments", not seeing second nominations for articles that were decisively kept previously as disruptive/pointed, or use of the failed fiction guideline) that makes it difficult for me to trust with deletion tools as relates to articles concerning fictional characters or television episodes in particular. Too biased on one side of the spectrum when it comes to lists or fiction articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it that this is a list of discussions in which you !voted keep and Lankiveil !voted delete. The several that I clicked on all showed a mixed bag of opinions, with a mix of keep and delete results. I also saw reasonable arguments given. So what's the big deal? Can people not express an opinion different to your own? Moondyne 02:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one thing to express a different opinion, it's another thing to be in the position to delete maybe even years work of volunteer work under the influence of that opinion. Admins need to approach AfDs with impartiality. This candidate clearly does not like lists or articles on fictional characters or on episodes. As such, I do not trust the candidate's judgment in closing those kinds of discussions. For the same reason, I who obviously fall in the inclusion category do not make non-admin closures of these kinds of articles and even if bizarrely I was an admin, I would still most likely avoid closing such discussions. I oppose because it is important that we do not risk questionable closes that require deletion reviews. I have supported admins who have disagreed with me here and there, but the above is more than just the occasional disagreement. Moreover, the way the arguments are made tend to be weak, i.e. use of the nonsense and unacademic word "cruft" or the subjective claim of "non-notable." One thing I want to make clear is that yes, I have deep concerns on how the candidate might close these particular kinds of discussions, but it does not mean that I think the candidate has not made other constructive contributions or that I have any actual dislike for the candidate as the candidate does appear on my list of nice Wikipedians. I like that admin DGG, who tends to be more on the inclusionist side of the list and fiction articles, deliberately does NOT close those particular discussions. I don't believe admin Casliber, also on the inclusionist side on those discussions, closes either. Thus, my concern is solely closing discussions for which the candidate may have even a subconcious bias and that is all. If Lankiveil has no intention to close these particular kinds of discussions as there are plenty of unambiguously neutral admins around, then I won't oppose. After all, we did agree in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any indication that he would close these AfDs? —Giggy 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon, like it's any secret LGRdC is a one-issue RfA voter and this is the 457th time he's given a laundry list of AfDs in which he has disagreed with the candidate. I should compile a list of RfAs where he was the lone dissent. Let's let him have his soapbox and move on. Tan ǀ 39 05:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is okay for those with obvious bias against list, episode, and fictional character articles to close those discussions, then I think henceforth rather than participate in the discussions I too will close them. Also, I support or oppose for a variety of reasons, sometimes I like good article contributors, sometimes I like to just assume good faith, etc. Anyway, see User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Request_for_adminship.2Fbureaucratship_thank_yous for more. In this particular example there are for more AfDs than the usual couple and they all are on specific kinds of articles, which suggests a bias against these specific kinds of articles. Therefore, it would not be unusual for the candidate to at least pledge to recuse himself from these particular kinds of discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Le Grand, you are explicitly allowed to close any AFDs that you wish to close that fall within the pertinent guideline for non admin closures. Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I have not done so thus far is because I am following the examples of more inclusionist admins like DGG and Casliber who seem to recuse themselves from closing the list, fictional character, and television episode articles; however, I do notice at least a couple admins who typically nominate and argue to delete those kinds of articles who always seem to be the ones who close the on-the-fence AfDs as delete when without a doubt they could have either gone the other way or more realistically have been a no consensus. I tend to find say your, Jerry, and Wizardman closes as neutral and fair, but there are a couple (and I am not interested in calling anyone out in someone's RfA) that I have considerably less confidence in. I feel the same way here. I think Lankiveil is a nice person and I actually have agreed with him in at least one AfD as indicated above, but when it comes specifically to lists, episodes, and characters the candidate only seems to want to delete these articles and as such it makes me concerned for how he would read consensus regarding them. Again, the diffs I provide above are a mixed bag, meanings that some were not clear deletes, yet in every example he argued to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hoping he addresses that. And again, it is not about deleting articles in general. After all see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizha James and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diadem of Maunstraut from today alone. It is a concern over always wanting to delete these specific types of articles when the above suggests that sometimes the consensus actually is to keep or at least something other than to clearly delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Why does he end up on the loosing side of AFD's so much and doesn't cite and policies for reasons? scary what could happen as a closing admin etc.--Dacium (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like to challenge opposes, but what might you mean by "the losing side"? There is no such thing in an AFD. Also, he does cite his reasoning in the AFDs he has participated in, as demonstrated in the AFDs LGRdC has linked to. bibliomaniac15 20:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that those listed are the AfDs where the candidate disagreed with LGR's inclusionist manifesto. Have you looked through other AfDs? Corvus cornixtalk 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Corvus Cornix is an extreme deletionist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Need To Think Nuetral I'm unsure. He seems accomplished and edxperienced, and seems like a hard worker, but there is just part of me that says no. I'll probably say yes, but I'll need to think about it.--Master of Pies (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC) I'm Suppourting[reply]
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