Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KnightLago

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.

KnightLago[edit]

Final (93/0/0); ended 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

KnightLago (talk · contribs) - I’m proud to nominate User:KnightLago for adminship. In his 2 years with Wikipedia, he has proved himself to be an experienced, well-trusted member of the community. He has experience in all aspects of Wikipedia, frequenting pages which needs the attention of experienced editors, such as WP:AFD and WP:PR. He’s also a great vandal fighter, and issues warnings/reports said users appropriately. He’s also very civil, fair, and communicates with other users. He has a thorough knowledge of policy, which can be seen in his contributions, and at our admin coaching page. As his former admin coach, my interactions with KnightLago have all been positive, he meets my standards for adminship, and I’m sure he’s more than ready for the mop. CattleGirl talk 10:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. KnightLago (talk) 14:38, 27 March 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: I intend to use the mop at CSD, AIV, and UAA to start. I would also continue to monitor recent changes and work on article improvement (which I find particularly enjoyable).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my contributions to Florida Atlantic University, which is now a featured article. I spent a number of months writing and rewriting the article. Once I got it up to snuff I shepherded it through a few copyedits, peer review, and finally FAC. During this process I wrote a few articles for The Signpost. Examples are here, here, and here. I am also active at WikiProject Universities where I try and provide assistance and advice whenever possible. At the moment I am searching for another article that interests me to work on improving it to a FA.
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: I have had a few minor disagreements with users before, but all were resolved through discussion. The only major one that comes to mind is here. I consider it major because the other user quit the project after expressing his frustrations. Both myself and a 3rd uninvolved user tried to discuss the problem with him, but he was mad that the article was not more positive and argued it should be more like other articles that were NPOV violations. He also seemed to be fed up with Wikipedia in general. I am not really sure what else I could have done, I hoped he would return after cooling down, but I haven't seen him since. I'm a big fan of talking to others when there is controversy. This usually results in a compromise that improves the article. In dealing with stress I follow the same approach and try to not take things personally.

Optional questions from Tiptoety talk

4. What is your opinion on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it?
A: I plan to add myself. If experienced editors felt that I was not acting in the best interest of the project I would happily stand for reconfirmation.
5. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When are you willing to use it, when are you not? Are you willing to use it when closing an AfD? Why or why not?
A: I believe it is good policy because it reminds people to use common sense in helping the project and in avoiding instruction creep. However, if someone is going to claim IAR they need to be able to explain their action and why it falls under this policy. In my time here I cannot recall ever having an occasion to invoke it. In regard to an AfD, I think I would open a discussion at the administrators noticeboard and seek input from others. As IAR is not something to be done rashly.
6. You see that a administrator has deleted a page per A7, but after a quick google search you find the person to be clearly notable. How would you handle that situation?
A: I would first look at the deleted page and determine what the situation was. If there were no problems with the page other than the author failed to indicate why the subject was important or significant, I would recreate the page and add why the subject was important, and then add the sources I found to support the importance and establish notability if necessary. I would then leave the deleting admin a note letting them know I had recreated the page and if they had any problems with that to please contact me so we could discuss.
7. When should cool down blocks be used?
A: Per blocking policy cool down blocks are never to be used.

Optional Question from Balloonman Just a few days ago, you asked USER:Alison to be your co-coach. The message indicated that your current coach had been inactive for the past few months. You also wrote, I think I am fairly far along and am almost ready for an RFA. Since you wrote this just two days ago, I have to ask two questions:

8. As of two days ago, you felt that you were 'almost ready.' What areas did you feel that you needed more help in and how have you covered those areas?

A) I did not have any specific area or questions in mind. If I did I would have gone and read the policy or found the appropriate place and asked. I asked Alison because I had signed up for admin coaching and wanted to ensure I had the knowledge needed to use the tools properly. After CattleGirl returned from her break and reviewed my questions and contributions from when she had been gone, she felt, and I agreed that I am ready for adminship.

9. The timing seems a little weird to me. It almost feels as if your coach wasn't as active as you would like and rather than completing your training, is responding to your post to Alison and throwing you out for an RfA. How can you assuage that concern?

A) Knowing CattleGirl, I don't think she did that. She has been nothing but honest, positive, and helpful in all my interactions with her. I believe if she felt that I was not ready she would have told me so. Second, in order to assauge your concern about my fitness I ask that you look at the work I have done for the project.

Optional question from Keepscases

10. RuPaul only had one thing to say. What was it?

A: I need sourcing and a good cleanup?? I am really not sure what you are asking here.  :-)

Optional questions from MBisanz

11. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?
A. I am unfamiliar with the technical part of administrative moves. I have moved a few simple pages in my time, but not enough that I feel comfortable taking on anything complex. I would need more practice first.
12. You come across a user vandalizing some articles through POV-pushing, 3RR, etc (Not page blanking or the like), you go to block them and see they have the ip-block-exempt flag (proposed). Does this impact your decision to block? What if they protest that their a trusted user who shouldn't be blocked?
A. I think I would pause and review everything for a moment, but I know POV-pushing and 3RR violations are not acceptable from trusted or non-trusted users, so I would block/remove the exemption and then post a note to ANI for discussion and review.

Optional question from Charitwo talk

13. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: Banning is a formal revocation of editing privileges by the community, the Arbcom, Jimbo, or the Foundation. An indef block is done when there is major disruption, vandalism only account, etc. If no admin unblocks, the user is considered banned.

Optional question from -- King Rock Go 'Skins!

14. As an admin, what do you plan to do about vandlism on Wikipedia? How will you help contribute to the endless battle against vandlism?

A: As stated above, I plan on working at AIV, UAA, and CSD, while also monitoring recent changes.

Optional Questions from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

15. All of the following accounts were blocked as socks or puppet masters: AndalusianNaugahyde, AshbyJnr, Blueanode, Brandon97, Burntsauce, Casperonline, Dannycali, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Eyrian, Gazpacho, Golfcam, IPSOS, Jack Merridew, JohnEMcClure, LAZY 1L, Moby Dick, Mrs random, Note to Cool Cat, 75.5.225.151, SolidPlaid, Varlak, and Yeshivish. As the block logs indicate, these accounts used sockpuppetry and harassment of editors in order to get over two hundred popular culture related articles deleted from Wikipedia, including those indicated in this list that one of the banned accounts wrote. Even if you personally want those articles deleted, do the ends justify the means? What if anything could or should be done to reverse what they did and to send a message that sockpuppetry and harassment will not succeed on Wikipedia?
A: No, the ends do not justify the means. Their actions are against policy for a reason. In order to remedy the situation I would suggest turning to either one or a combination of the following: DRV, the AN, or the ArbCom. In order to show people that we will not tolerate this behavior, I believe we should do exactly what you are doing. Bring their actions into the light through investigation, determine the extent of the problem, and then work constructively as a community to remedy the situation.

Optional question from Animum

16. Boxers or briefs?
A: I am going to go with option C, which is both/none of the above, or boxer briefs.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Beat the Nom Support. A full third of your mainspace contributions are to one article (Florida Atlantic University), where you doubled its length and brought it to FA status. Most impressive. I also see good contributions to AIV and UAA. No reservations about the candidate's ability to properly use the tools to the benefit of the project. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Knows policy, has worked to promote civil discussion between users, and has been a solid contributor to articles. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - According to this user's special contributions for WP:CSD, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA, they certainly know policy. Good stuff. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Excellent user with an excellent nominator. Acalamari 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - All looks good here. Tiptoety talk 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Extremely well-rounded candidate. Reflects characteristics needed in administrators well. Rudget. 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I can find no reason why this candidate shouldn't have the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support A good editer with almost 4000 mainspace edits of his 7000 total. Also, decent answers.--RyRy5 talk 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I trust this editor not to abuse the tools, and he will do much good with them. Harland1 (t/c) 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. per above found no serious problems. meets User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA. Dlohcierekim 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support -- Everything is more than in order! Besides all the regulars are supporting *Not to be taken seriously* --Cameron (t/c) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Yep yep. Tan | 39 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support After reading his answers to the questions asked, and viewing a few of his articles he has contributed to, I place my vote to support this action.Matthew Glennon (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Even though he lacks the requisite number of Portal talk: edits, he seems like he'll learn. :) MBisanz talk 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Knight seems trustworthy, and has demonstrated a clear need for the tools—a great bonus in any candidate. He's experienced, and technically savvy. I am confident that mopping him will be beneficial to the project. No-brainer, standard-support. Regards, Anthøny 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I noticed knight the other day when he had contact Alison about becoming a co-coach... I was impressed by his initiative to go in search of a coach and said so then... while seeing this RfA now was a bit of surprise, based upon that post, I feel comfortable supporting him.Balloonman (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yep. You've got exactly what it takes. Support without hesitation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Looks like a fine editor to me. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, per the above 20 users. All of them. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Seems like he will do a good job with the tools. BigDunc (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Absolutely. --Charitwo talk 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support excellent vandal fighting. SpencerT♦C 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Looks good. :) GlassCobra 00:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Sure, no problems. Malinaccier (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. You weren't already a sysop? Support I'm surprised that this took so long. You're good to go for the tools. --Sharkface217 02:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support You seem like someone to be trusted with sysop buttons. Polly (Parrot) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. —Dark talk 05:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, as nominator, 'course =] CattleGirl talk 06:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, if trustworthy users trust KnightLago, so should I. MrPrada (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support what else? abf /talk to me/ 08:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  35. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. -- Naerii 16:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support great candidate for the tools. Gwguffey (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support User seems to fully understand Wikipedia policies. Appears to be trustworthy. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Good answers. Axl (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. No problems here. --CWY2190(talk • contributions) 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I have looked over his logs and edits and see the makings of a fine administrator. I trust he will wield the mop with accuracy and good judgment. We need more people like this for recent changes patrol to deal with vandalism and inappropriate articles. Edison (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Great article contributions, and nice answers to questions. Good work. :) Cheers, Midorihana~いいですね? はい! 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Nearly 4000 mainspace edits has been around since March 2006 and no specfic concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. S - looks good to me. Arkyan 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. FA work + some good answers to questions. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support7000 all good Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. The Transhumanist 23:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Trustworthy, needs the tools, all seems fine. Best of luck! Regards, Anthøny 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC) [self-strike] Apologies, I'd already supported :) I thought the RfA seemed familiar! Well, count this as a secondary, moral support ;) Anthøny 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - iMatthew 2008 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. User looks fine to me. Singularity 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Everything looks good here. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - –Cheers, LAX 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support --Duk 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per the nom statement. Good luck! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 10:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Great user. Also per WP:SNOW (i.e. jump-on-the-bandwagon :P ) J.delanoygabsadds 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No concerns have been brought up so far, so of course I'll support you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SJP (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Per answers to the questions. Good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Clearly no problems here. -WarthogDemon 19:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I see no cons. Húsönd 20:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Great user. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 20:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Good answers and always glad to support a fellow vandal watcher/fighter. Gwandoya Talk 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: No reason not to. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - I've seen him around and have often been impressed. Not much more to say! Keilana|Parlez ici 07:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Pile on support. I can't find a reason not to support. Enigma message 08:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Trustworthy and experienced user, will be a good admin. CenariumTalk 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support Well done on the FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Looks like this editor would be fine with the tools. Shell babelfish 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Go for it, seems to be a model candidate. James086Talk | Email 13:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I want to jump on the dog pile too. нмŵוτнτ 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Will make a good syop. Dustitalk to me 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I've seen KnightLago around WikiProject Universities. His contributions to WP are useful and well done, and I think he's fully ready for adminship. Esrever (klaT) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - zero concerns, meets my standards, seems to be a model candidate bordering on the normal. :-) Bearian (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - less than no concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Great user. —C'est moi Parlez 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Very thorough editor. Knowledgeable on wiki topics and guidelines. Good luck on your adminship! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong support Very productive and samrt. He has made his contributions to wikipedia and is dedicated to making wikipedia a better place-- King Rock Go 'Skins! 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per above. VegaDark (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose due to lack of contributions to Official Monster Raving Loony Party and Screaming Lord Sutch. Elfits (klat) 10:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support: Looks promising to me. --Bhadani (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support See no reasons to suggest user will abuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Supprot. Good contributions, seems unlikely to abuse tools. Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Yep! --jonny-mt 08:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support A great user who has good article building experience and knows the Wikipedia policies. I see no reason to think that he won't be responsible with the admin tools. JamieS93 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Solid enough. No concerns. SilkTork *YES! 13:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support because I like it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per answer to my question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Trust, judgment, blah, blah, blah… -- Avi (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Very promising contributions. No sign that he may abuse the tools. Clear yes. --Abrech (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Yep, no evidence that this user will ever abuse the tools. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Wizardman 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Jmlk17 06:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong Support There is absolutely no reason not to support you. I have no doubts you will have the mop and bucket soon, and I will feel safe knowing Wikipedia is then under your jurisdiction. asenine t/c 07:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Eh eh eh.... --Crazy_Anne (Eh..eh..eh) 09:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly specify what the reasons may be? You haven't much edits outside this topic. Rudget. 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside which topic? And btw. it's many edits...--Crazy_Anne (Eh..eh..eh) 13:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was the account's 7th edit, and 4 of the previous 6 edits were to its own user/talk pages. Enigma message 15:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Little Britain characters#Anne. This account is a silly joke though a bit early; April fools is tomorrow. James086Talk | Email 13:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral - The editor is clean enough, but I cannot support someone who is willing to pick option C (Q16) without even being sure what option C is, especially when the uncertainty takes it to opposing extremes. That brings uncertainty about his actions as an admin, will he just pick option C without reviewing what actions he takes? Or maybe I just didn't want to see someone go with no neutrals or opposition, and I cannot oppose. KV(Talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but I think creativity (or in this case all-or-nothing) would be a nice twist in the already twisted bunch of admins! :D hardy-har-har -- wait... this is going to bite me back on my next RfA... isn't it? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:41, 3 April 2008 (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/KnightLago&oldid=1142504928"