Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Art LaPella

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Art LaPella[edit]

Final (51/14/4) Ended Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:06:24 UTC

Art LaPella (talk · contribs) – Art LaPella has been a self-described copyeditor on the wiki since August 2004. I know him as a regular at WP:ERRORS, a copyeditor of Did you know suggestions before they go live, and the only editor I've seen point out grammatical errors from tomorrow's Main Page. He has stated he wants the mop mainly to fix mistakes that slip onto the Main Page. Given the depth of his experience on the wiki, I have no doubts about his ability if he chooses to expand into a more 'traditional' admin task. I am pleased, and a little relieved, to nominate him. BanyanTree 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you. I accept.

It says I can make a statement. I somewhat understand opponents who don't want specialists to be administrators, but I don't understand those who think that makes me insufficiently zealous for the cause. That implies I should spend more time at the Village Pump, or wherever one learns the answers to questions like my response to question 9, and remake my middle-aged nerd personality. Proportional counterdemands would be that others study spelling for instance, and join me at places like tomorrow's Main Page, which is surely understaffed if I'm the only one watching it.

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:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I am slowly gaining confidence, but for now the only place I expect to use administrators' powers is on the Main Page, which would save the time it takes to get an administrator to fix the typos and such that I often discover there.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I try to concentrate my copyediting where it will do the most good, such as tomorrow's Main Page, and heavily edited articles such as this edit. I work on Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive - typical edit. I do spelling, grammar etc., rewriting text obviously composed by foreigners, wikilinks, new redirects, and some vandalism reversion. Sometimes I correct longitudes and latitudes, and important statistics like this one. I would do that more often if Wikipedia didn't have so many obvious things that need fixing.
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: I stay far away from making controversial edits myself (although others need to make them), but I have often commented on other people's battles, while simultaneously correcting spelling etc. on both sides of an edit war. I believe I have a calming effect (example) (example). However, I don't take charge like an administrator very well - for instance, here (search for my name to find where I entered that discussion) the accompanying edit war ended abruptly when I gave up and left. Also, I'm not really politically correct enough for such a large, open organization - this tirade could be construed to violate several policies, although it produced a couple months of lull in that edit war and the combatants have done a better job of addressing each others' points ever since. (It's now in arbitration.)
I am certainly vulnerable to Wikistress, except when dealing with clear-cut bad guys in predetermined ways (like escalating vandalism warnings). When I first discovered Wikipedia, I quit cold turkey after a few weeks. It wasn't till 9 months later that I discovered that my biggest frustration, summarized ‎here, had little effect on actual articles. I don't expect to be blocking or banning, but you do need me on the Main Page. If the intent of the question is about whether I take out my frustrations on the innocent, my concept of justice is logical like my mathematics. Art LaPella 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: "Ignore all rules" is a joke, as is its corollary WP:DICK (see my unanswered question on the meta talk page). The text of the rule, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" is more serious. Even courtrooms will ignore the letter of the law when a clearly unexpected problem arises. As for the snowball clause, I've never encountered it but I see you have an opposite essay called Wikipedia:Process is important. If by some misfortune the decision were mine, it would be less stressful for me to cycle through a process than to gather a consensus for short-circuiting it, but that doesn't mean everyone should do it that way.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: My opponents are correct to worry that I haven't studied this stuff, but I'm good at deciphering legalese. It says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure." My first impression was that it's a distinction without a difference. If behavior invites a "punitive measure", then blocking it would "prevent damage or disruption". But I read also there is a controversy about short term blocks, meaning less than 24 hours, although I don't know why 24 hours is a magic figure. For an established user, anything short of several months could only have a punitive effect at best - if punishment isn't going to improve his behavior then he's going to be right back. But I wouldn't ignore whatever consensus exists, just to enforce my reading of conflicting policies.
6. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
A: WP:XYZKKJ??? But once again, I'm good at deciphering legalese. I found it on WP:CSD, and it's a situation like I encountered at the first section of User talk:Weavefuture, which I managed by handing it off to others.

Optional question from Feydey (talk · contribs)

7. Could You give examples of new articles You have written?
A: Well, no, unless you count redirects and disambiguations - I wrote lots of those. I wrote most of ex dividend date, which is important to my job. When I write a lot of text, as in that article, it tends to get rewritten, so usually I copyedit with almost no complaints. Here's an essay I wrote off Wikipedia.

Optional questions by Ac1983fan(yell at me) 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)(Optional for a support vote, that is. :))[reply]

8. The IP 12.345.67.89 is vandalising an article that is on your watchlist. You run the user with Test-1 through Test-4. The user stops after the Test-4 warning. Next week, the user is vandalising two articles, the first one and a different, related article. Do you warn him or block him immediatly? Justify your answer.
A: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism states: "Do not list here if ... They have not vandalized very recently (past 24 hours) ..." That rule has apparently been in place longer than it has been explained on the page. The current practice seems to be to start all over again with Test-1, 2 or whatever, and I've been doing that. But it looks hokey. Maybe there should be a template that says "This is really really really the last warning". My solution is to add a new heading with today's date before starting over with Test-1 or 2.
9. Would you act differently as an admin then you would as a user?
A: Not yet. I have used the above WP:AIV page 3 times, and only 1 user was actually blocked. I'm good at reading the rules, but I can't read the unwritten rules like the exception for AOL addresses. Until I have confidence that I would make (or at least predict) the decision that the powers that be would make, I would continue to list offenders at AIV and see what happens.
10. Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
A: Both. Do you mean, do I overestimate or underestimate a vandal's bad intentions? My philosophy is rational, so I would try to do neither in order to come up with the most appropriate response.
11. You find a registered editor who has been adding {{db-nonsense}} to several articles, such as Wii, Microsoft Windows, and Sony. However, after checking their contributation history, you find that, up until this point, they have had a pretty respectable edit history. What do you do in this situation? Justify your answer.
A: Those 3 are technical articles, so discovering an established user would make me question and double-check my conclusion that it was nonsense - he could easily know something I don't. If I still considered it nonsense, I would discuss it on his user page and/or the talk page. If I couldn't get a straight answer, I suppose I should (Gulp!) start issuing vandalism warnings. Here's how I tried to deal with a situation something like that last year. Perhaps you were looking for me to cite the unintentional nonsense paragraph.
General comments

Art LaPella's editcount summary stats as of 07:17, October 30th 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 07:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think that some of the optional questions are muddling what I see as the central issue, though of course I'm biased as the nominator. This user has established a track record working around the protected Main Page and he is willing to do so without an intermediary, but needs his user rights changed to do so. Nevertheless, he has answered the standard yet optional questions, which have little to do with his stated reason for wanting admin rights, and which now compose much of this subpage. If users are concerned about admin candidates who envision themselves using a limited subset of the privileges, I think it would be clearer to state that outright, rather than expressing concern about answers to questions about privileges that the candidate does not see as central to their candidacy. - BanyanTree 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Banyan is largely correct, but I imagine there to be three concerns those opposing in view of Art's non-conversance with certain policies, his professed intention to partake qua sysop only of those areas with the policies and practice relative to which he is well acquainted, and think neither concern to be wholly without merit.
  • First, I have long argued (e.g., at my RfA guidelines page) that our sysopping someone who intends to act only in one area, even as he is altogether unfamiliar with other areas, is quite fine if we are able to conclude that the user is unlikely avolitionally to misuse the tools (that is, if we can be relatively sure that a user's judgment is such that he will know whereof he does not know—in the Rumsfeldian formulation—and won't act, qua sysop, where he might inadvertently err); I think some opposers to be concerned that Art might seek to branch out thinking himself to know whereof he might act and to be quite comfortable with such actions but not, in fact, properly familiar with relevant policies/guidelines/practice (which evaluation is, IMHO, expressed quite well by Xoloz and Yanksox.
  • Second, one might well be, I think, troubled by the answers to optional questions in view not of the lack of knowledge of policies, etc., evidenced but in view of the thinking that underlying those answers, in view of which thinking one might appreciate certain deficiencies in judgment. For me, at least, certain locutions employed (e.g., opponents for those who oppose; whilst perhaps technically correct, the term seems unnecessarily to consign those opposing to some partisan corner) and certain odd turns of logic (e.g., Those 3 are technical articles, so discovering an established user would make me question and double-check my conclusion that it was nonsense - he could easily know something I don't; I'm fairly sure I understand what Art means here, but I'm not at all sure that the underlying thinking is clear) are disconcerting.
  • Finally, whilst one might excuse altogether Art's unfamiliarity, for example, with the minutiae of speedy deletion—after all, he does not intend, at least at present, to partake of speedy—one might well be troubled by his ostensible unfamiliarity with, for example, the fact of the existence of CSD G11, if only because such unfamiliarity makes one wonder whether Art's familiarity with the community writ large might be insufficient for him properly to deal with other users, even those who might write him apropos only of his main page work. Joe 21:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat-the-nom support, Art LaPella is an excellent user. I see no red flags in their editing, and since adminship is "no big deal", I'm happy to support to allow Art to simply copyedit the main page - and hopefully expand on that in the future. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. - BanyanTree 04:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Mkdw 06:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. per nom. Good user. Should have been made admin long back. Cheers. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 07:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support obviously. Candidate has a clear rationale for needing adminship, and there's no reason, other than a total failure to assume good faith, not to give it to him. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as the most explicitly stated need for the mop I've seen yet. Go for it. AuburnPilottalk 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Good editor, steady flow of contributions, knows his way around... I can't see any cons.--Húsönd 19:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - good editor, why not? ST47Talk 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nominator's statement. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Nomination gives excellent description of a clear need for admin privileges. Editor has been around for years as a trouble-free contributor; I don't expect he will suddenly turn rogue and start abusing the tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Has been here for a long time, knows the ropes. Will not abuse the tools. feydey 20:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Good at janitorial work, needs a mop. -Will Beback 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Looks good. -- danntm T C 20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Mike | Trick or Treat 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support on the basis of not having an admintype specifically for copy editing the main page, it must be all or nothing. And I feel this user can be trusted with "all". --Steve 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support experienced, will not abuse tools, has fixed mistakes of mine, and has been curteous about it. Dar-Ape 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per nom. John254 04:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Art LaPella is one of the most courteous, patient and affable editors I have ever had the pleasure of encountering. Much more important than a knowledge of the minutiae of Wikipedia policy is being reasonable, levelheaded, and willing to consult policy or look for help when it is needed. In my experience, he is all of these things. The only thing I don't like about this nom is that the idea of nominating him didn't occur to me first. –Joke 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - has helped many a dyk improve.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support satisfies my requirements Alex Bakharev 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, experienced and trustworthy, will be good for the Main Page, doesn't look like he'll rush to do bad things in those areas where he is less experienced. Kusma (討論) 11:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per his contributions to DYK  Doctor Bruno  15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support He's got a good rationale for needing the tools, and a good record to demonstrate that he will not abuse them. I also agree with User:Joke137 that openly consulting the policies in question is a good thing. Dina 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I'm willing to make a leap of faith here. Bucketsofg 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Reliable, long time editor; expect him to use discretion with the tools. --Trödel 14:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. support adminship is no big deal for responsible, trustworthy editors. He has 2+ years of dedicated work with no apparently problems, if he wants to help out more, more power to him. --W.marsh 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support seems responsible. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Comments on IAR and DICK are a breath of sanity (contrary to the recent trend on the former), he seems unlikely to misuse the tools, and whether he uses the blunt end of the mop with any great gusto isn't some I see as a basis for withholding support. Alai 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. No evident risk of abuse, given Art's area of interest and past behaviour, and a credible reason for needing the tools. I invoke again the No Big Deal clause. Guy 10:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Per answers to my questions.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Although I understand some opposers' point, I don't see any reason Art can't be trusted with the mop & bucket. —Angr 06:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Not ready to be a general purpose admin but more than ready enough to take on what he wants to do -- which is important overall to the Project. The Main Page is our front hall. Also, he's cautious enough to not move into other areas of adminship without checking carefully with others. He's no cowboy and he's eminently civil. His new powers will free up other admins to fight vandals, etc. --A. B. 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Based on his (limited) participation in the pseudoscience case Art seems to be a cautious and level headed person who is unlikely to abuse power. Cardamon 07:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support.Mustafa AkalpTC 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support; seems like he's got a head on his shoulders and isn't going to abuse the tools (though mistakes might be made). Good enough for me. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support AmiDaniel (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I feel that the candidate will not harm Wikipedia, and he has a clear use for the extra rights. He may not know as much of our convoluted policies as the average candidate, but he is aware of that and I trust that he will take that into account when exercising admin privileges. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, we need specialist admins and we need part-time admins, and there is no indication of any likelihood of misuse of tools, so absolutely support. NoSeptember 10:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. We're not nominating people for Wikipedia Dictator people, just giving them some simple access to tools. Anyone reasonable should automatically be granted upon request, since we can always take back adminship easily if it turns out to be a problem. --Delirium 11:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Narrow, but clear and trustworthy need for adminship. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - per nom --T-rex 18:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Weak support consistent with my comment supra and inasmuch as I have come to conclude that, whilst Art is not sufficiently well versed in policy as to be able properly to use the tools in most areas, he is possessed of sufficiently good, deliberative judgment as to know whereof he does not know and where it is he ought not to act, such that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will almost certainly be positive. I hope and trust that, should this RfA succeed, Art will, in view of the concerns expressed by those opposing, be exceedingly careful should he decide to undertake admin tasks in areas with which he is unfamiliar, and I am quite confident that his judgment is such that he will be careful and his demeanor and temperament are such that, should he be apprised that he has acted other-than-properly, he will act cordially straightaway to remedy his error. Joe 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Good user, cautiousness doesn't seem to be a negative in this case. Seems quite intelligent and able to interpret policy fairly. Irongargoyle 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seems he will handle the mop well - solid sensible editor. Vsmith 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Oops - looks like I missed the deadline by 9 minutes - darn! Vsmith 03:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Passes my criteria †he Bread 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I for one think we need to be more willing to grant admin privledges to users with a narrow need who demonstrate the maturity and civility requisite for the trust involved. I trust Art to use the admin privledges where he has the need and knowledge and to not use them where he is not informed. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sorry, but the low number of wiki-space edits suggests a lack of experience with wiki-process at present. Candidates need to have a good knowledge of some area of wiki-space before they accept the added responsibility of the mop. Xoloz 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment What areas of Wiki-process do you think Art is unfamiliar with, that will harm their ability to perform the specific task nominated above? Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. I see you've answered this below. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Xoloz as wiki-space edits are important about wiki-process.--Jusjih 16:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask both Xoloz and Jusjih to give a bit more detail on this? Do you believe that copyediting of the Main Page requires indepth knowledge of wikipolicy? Alternatively, do you believe this user's claim that he simply wants the ability to copyedit the Main Page directly and expresses caution about other moppage lacks credibility? Thanks, BanyanTree 16:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, I take the candidate at his word regarding present intentions; however, we do not a have a category of "adminship specifically for copyediting the main page", nor is there really a need for such. Note that the answer to Question 1 says "for now" -- once candidate is approved at RfA, he has the full bucket. I don't want to give any candidate the full bucket until they show proficiency with some admin-type tasks. Since the candidate might one day "expand" and use the other tools, I do require some basic essential knowledge of how to use the tools before I can support any candidacy. Even with something as "detail-oriented" as main-page editiong, a knowledge of page protection policy and WP:NOT is really important, I think. Nothing personal -- as my userpage says, I'm an "RfA conservative".
    If the candidate really only wants to copy-edit the main-page, I will happily insert any fixes promptly if he points them out to me. I'm here virtually everyday. :) Xoloz 16:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. - BanyanTree 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If typos are actually a major problem with the front page, I think a more systemic solution would be to create a dedicated space for all editors to point out the typos, which can then be fixed by and admin. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (WP:ERRORS). A pretty varied crowd shows up to point out the astonishing number of errors of fact and grammatical offenses that we are prominently displaying, but I started noticing Art as a regular who was always right. Given his long track record on the wiki, it will be better to let him do his own copyedits IMO. - BanyanTree 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I count 17 edits by Art in the last 6 weeks/500 edits. ~ trialsanderrors 21:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which appears to make him the most active non-admin on that page, eyeballing the history. I'm aware that I'm not claiming that this candidate will rock the wiki with the mop, but there's a clear benefit that I've outlined and, with due respect to the opposers, nothing in this user's history leads me to think that he would abuse the privileges. (Sorry to all for the length of this. Maybe further discussion on this topic, if needed, could take place on the talk?)- BanyanTree 22:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to know: how does the number of WP: edits correalate to knowledge of policy?--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose While the candidate is to be commended for spending time to answer the optional questions, nearly all of his answers did not sit well with me and are not tendencies I'd feel comfortable with a user with extra buttons having hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Hoopydink. Art's answers seem to convey clearly that he doesn't feel ready. If this is so, he would have been advised to wait a couple of months more. While I don't ask for someone booming with confidence and a sense of authority, I would like to see an administrator help out with "anything," which means taking on stressful situations. Consider this - this doesn't mean that you have to resolve stressful situations by yourself, but your "hands-off" sentiment doesn't sit well. Rama's arrow 12:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Firm Oppose per WP:XYZKKJ and per Xoloz, whose assessment of candidates' policy knowledge is usually correct. Unlike me, you are a good editor. Please stay an editor. - crz crztalk 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Unfortunately, the tools are not something that you can limit use to certain functions, it's a whole package. And, with no offense to the candidate, we don't know how you will function with the tools or how you will behave with them. It's not a lack of trust, but it's really a lack of understanding what kind of admin you could be. This is nothing against you, considering I think you are an absolutely fantastic editor, but it is just an issue with a lack of knowledge for the position. A proper analogy would be if an excellent doctor tried to pass the bar exam (with no knowledge of what is on the exam), they are a great doctor and well trusted, but they are ill suited for being a lawyer. That situation applies here. Yanksox 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been my experience that when admins screw up, it is not a lack of understanding of the minutiae of process. When someone makes a mistake of process, it is usually quickly fixed with little fuss. What really causes problems is when admins behave in immature ways, when their tempers flare, when they succumb to the conceit that they are above the rules, or when they seem to wilfully ignore process. I don't think Art, in more than two years and thousands of edits, has ever given anyone cause to worry about that. –Joke 02:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is more to the tools that just screwing up. There can be many, many actions that people don't catch up on. Sometimes the way people are treated indirectly through admin tools is irreversible, therein lies the true issue. Yanksox 03:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Concerned about lack of Wikipedia space activity and policy knowledge. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm afraid I share the above concern about lack of experience. >Radiant< 15:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. He is a great editor, without a doubt, but I don't think he is ready for adminship or that he has a clear understanding of what an undertaking it is. I think admin candidates need to demonstrate a willingness to "get involved" because the community will get you involved when you're an admin. I don't feel that the candidate's answers demonstrate the requisite willingness. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per weak rationale. Michael 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per concerns expressed by Xoloz and Hoopydink. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per the answers to the questions, which show that the user is unfamliar with important policy and is reluctant to get involved with controversial actions, both or which are very important for an admin. --Daniel Olsen 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, unfortunately, per Xoloz, Hoopydink, Aguerriero; seems a fine editor, but for admin, inexperience, weak rationale, underestimates involvement. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose The real trouble is that, unfortunately, you get the whole package when your account is flagged. If this were simply a matter of being able to edit the mainpage, I'd support in a heartbeat, but it's more. I really want to think you have the policy knowledge necessary (and I'm sure you could in several months), but I just don't see it there. All of this isn't to devalue your contributions. You've done a lot of good for Wikipedia and I most certainly hope you will stay with us. I'd encourage you to learn a little bit more policy and return in several months. Alphachimp 17:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Seems like a good user, but the rationale for getting the mop is too weak. ~ trialsanderrors 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Looks like an excellent user, but I am hesitant to give the mop to someone without a good grasp of the deletion and blocking policies. Eluchil404 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Art is a valuable editor and I can see his reasoning behind his IAR and DICK answers. On the other hand, handing off situations to others isn't "management" – it's avoidance. Custodians who usually specialize in floor waxing sometimes have to clean out the clogged drains in the bathroom, and they have to know how to do it when other custodians aren't around to do it for them. KrakatoaKatie 06:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I'd really like to vote yes, because Art is doing so much good around here and could do more. The trouble is that you can't be a partial administrator. Either you have all the powers and responsibilities, or you have none. I can't see Art deliberately misusing his powers, but if he doesn't know 100% what he's doing, he could easily make a slip.--Runcorn 23:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Art_LaPella&oldid=1085414158"