User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/silver lining

Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ...	and silver linings	Thank you for your support on my RfA.
		Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

Votes

Post-mortem of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters in progress...

Sorry if I still have something in the wrong category still. It is a sandbox under my talk page :-).

Support

Admins

(who no-doubt want to help with future admin-type issues :-))

Lowly regular editors

(the meek probably won't inherit the earth)

brenneman ^(t)^(c)
Tantalum T e lluride
172
ntennis
Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me}
Colin Kimbrell
User:Encyclopedist
Quarl (talk)
Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs
Syrthiss: but please use your edit summaries more.
Jaranda ^{wat's sup}
cooki e caper (talk / contribs)
Ter e nc e Ong
^Blank ^Verse
Derex
Gaurav1146
Pete.Hurd
max rspct leave a message
ZappaZ: Don't know this editor, but I trust the nominator and others that have. Reading about the silly reasons of some of the oppose votes, gives me confidence that this is actually a good editor. Great will be the day that RfA's will stop being used to "get back" at editors that challenged you. Vote for the benefit of Wikipedia, not for the benefit of your politics.
ɹəədsɹ
Hipocrite
Calton
SarekOfVulcan
Youngamerican
haz (user talk)
Armeisen
ExRat
Megamix^?
Locke Cole • t
Pierremenard
Jayanthv86 User talk:Jayanthv86
Seth Mahoney
Saravask
jguk
Danny Yee
goethean &*2384;
User:Xoloz

Both directions

Piedras grandes

Supported oppose

There are a couple types of oppose votes that seem well supported, and good-faith:

Concerns about low use of edit summaries
Concerns about undesirable edits, even if rather old, and early in LotLE's edit history
Concerns about WP:AUTO
Concern with "campaigning"

The first reason seems entirely legitimate to me, though I might differ on the precise weight given to it. The second seems slightly tenuous: but I've proposed a "six months of exemplary behavior" standard, so there's nothing absurd about saying it should be 9 months or a year (except that most successful administrator nominees have less total history than this). The last two reasons I really disagree with in principle: I do not believe that anti-autobiography should be a categorical command, nor do I believe that WP:AUTO describes it as such; "campaigning", to my mind, is just an extension of normal editorial cooperation, if done cordially and with a professional tone.

There is another thread of voters who do act in good-faith, but with less deliberation than I believe is desirable.

"Where there's smoke, there's fire"

That is, votes that just look at the presence of prior oppose votes (even if those prior ones showed bad-faith), and assume "oppose" is the safest vote.

Admins

Oppose: it just is not a good practice for a user to be so active in editing the page about himself. Jonathunder 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Bob Dylan interactions with me not good. He spent a lot of time running down another editor though I asked him repeatedly to stick to the issues. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, sorry, but the already mentioned Style Wars are still too fresh for me. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, though generally a good editor on the basis of the contributions I've happened to see. I'm less concerned about the autobio issue as such (though it's a pretty blatant instance in terms of self-creation, frequency and total text of edits, marginal nature of notability, and vocalness to keep it) in that it's not a horrible article in and of itself, as with the rationalisations of it. These seem to involve minimisation, implied equivalency with people whose WP:AUTO contributions are far more minor (and aren't currently nominated, more to the point), and disregard for a guideline that has considerable community consensus. And, with the lack of any undertaking to refrain from continuing to act in the same way. Extend such a patterm to, say, the implementation of deletion or blocking, and that would be altogether more serious. Alai 20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unfortunately, per many above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins

Oppose per Grue. I'd also like to see the edit summary higher (especially minor edits). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I don't think creating an article about himself was a good idea. Thumbelina
Oppose as mostly per Grue and Starblind. No shortage of admin candidates with much less controversy. - Dharmabum420 00:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per pthers and for campaigning for changed votes. I don't really care for that. Sorry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have had no direct interactions with this user but some of his responses on the RfC lead me to question his composure when under pressure. Also, (IMHO) he seems a little over-eager to confront any opposing voters on their talk page, this makes him seem a bit too pushy but also makes me wonder whether he views adminship as 'no big deal'. TigerShark 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. kjetil_r 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grue and Starblind. Sarah Ewart 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RfC within the last 12 months. If he can go for a year without getting an RfC, a WP:AUTO complaint, or eleciting strong opposition (even from those who he disagrees with), give him a mop. Until then, I'm worried about giving hm a stick to go with the carrot. Ronabop 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other oppose

Unfortunately, in my opinion, a number of the oppose votes showed bad faith (a majority, in fact). These fall into a couple categories that overlap.

Outright political agenda. Like some editors, I tend to edit politicized topics; insisting on NPOV at these areas upsets people who want to push a POV instead. And some of these editors are very singular in purpose.
1. Politics in a traditional sense: E.g. a couple voters wanted pages to reflect their own strident positions on Fidel Castro and Ward Churchill; this put me in past conflict with them, not because I hold a different opinion per se, but because I insist the article be NPOV and verifiable as to any opinions.
2. Identitarian politics: I've tried to clean up some lists where people want "as many names as possible" included because they feel vindicated by having famous people "like themselves", but put specific evidence much lower. It was not that I make a different value judgement about being Jewish or GLB, but rather that I affronted them by denying that it was obvious who had these attributes.
Trivial grudges. Some editors treated the RfA as a "popularity contest" and voted solely to "get even with" past disagreements (even disagreements that were not politicized or contentious topics, just personalizing the editing).

Admins

Oppose doesn't know how to use preview, edited his own vanity article, violated civility several times, had a RfC against him, which lists some other reasons why this user should not be an admin . Grue 17:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I admit that this stuff is quite old, but the thing is, I never encountered this user since then so I can't say if he became better. The latest contributions that I saw do not convince me that this user will benefit from admin powers (no project participiation, no vandal fighting and so on). Grue 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grue, especially the vanity page part. I also find user page vandalism a troubling quality in a possible admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my own rollback after 3 minutes: [1] (yeah, it was a childish edit back in April 2005, at the height of annoyance, but I fixed it immediately). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
Strong oppose per Grue and Starblind. freestylefrappe 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongish Oppose Interactions show he doesn't completely understand Wikipedia and its policies. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins

Oppose No user that pushes a POV in articles that Cuba under Fidel Castro has had free elections since 1976 [[2] and then proceeds to slanders me unjustly about it [3] will ever get my vote. In addition, his assertion that Wikipedia can reference itself is disturbing [4]. Note: this was in the past 18 days. CJK 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grue & Starblind. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This person routinely violates WP by habitually engaging in ad hominem personal attacks, making extreme POV edits, and refusing to provide verification for his edits when he is challenged. See his constant personal attacks against me in the Ward Churchill talk page over the past few months. Also see the Ward Churchill: Allegations talk page. (Lulu refactored the Churchill article to exile the critical stuff into a separate article, as part of his POV-mongering.) He admits to being a strong Churchill supporter, and edits with a strong pro-Churchill POV. He refuses to negotiate in good faith, and instead stoops to ad hominem, and accuses people who disagree with him of being a "POV warrior." This is the last type of person you would ever want to have any administrative power at all.Pokey5945 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the quoted reasons above. RfC, vandalism, vanity, WP:CIVIL. Recognise that he's been behaving a lot more recently, so try again in a few months. Would have to recuse himself from working on the David Mertz article, entirely, though. No problems with his actual editing (the PoV complaints are a bunch of garbage). Proto t c 12:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think Lulu falls short of what I would hope for in an administrator in terms of his lack of civility and inability (or disinclination) to work with others in achieving consensus. Experience with his "list" project suggests he prefers imposing his own opinions as fiats. - Outerlimits 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Involved in dispute on Talk:List of Jewish jurists where he criticised editors in an extremely uncivil way for using the Jewish Year Book as a source describing it as "sectarian" [5] and "craptastic" [6] even though he self admittedly knew nothing about it, then refused to take part in mediation. Arniep 02:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per the evidence above about civility and bias in editing. I don't think David contributes for the right reasons, and would not improve WP as an admin. --John Hubbard 15:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per several of the comments above, including Arniep. Vulturell 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per many of the supports. CDThieme 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Outerlimits and ArnieP. His attitude as shown for example on Talk:List of Jewish jurists and his categorical refusal to consider mediation are not appropriate for an administrator. - RachelBrown 09:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC) [7][reply]
Oppose Lulu uses ad hominem attacks first and rational disagreement second. I know because he did it five minutes ago.--Zaorish 02:31, 24 January 2006
Oppose. I've been the target of a long-running string of spurious personal attacks from this user ever since I wouldn't going along with a position he pushed. Anybody who thinks "I almost certainly know more than you do" is appropriate to use in a dispute here [8] quite plainly shouldn't shouldn't have admin authority. Monicasdude 04:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I prefer not to give reasons because I don't want to be bickered with by the candidate, which bickering, curiously enough, is one of the reasons for opposing him. Grace Note 05:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ~~1400 edits in one year and a half. User is not active enough in my opinion.Soothing R 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)~~Sorry, that was the result of an unfortunate instance misreading at the nomination paragraph. However, I'm still opposing, as I think the user is not WP:CIVIL enough (see Starblind's comments).Soothing R 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look lower and you'll see his edits far surpass the 7,000 mark...that 1,400 is to Project space.--MONGO 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks for that. I had already spotted that myself but thanks for your attempt to increase my awareness.Soothing R 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

More edit summaries please. They are helpful to your fellow contributor on whose watchlist or recent changes list you may happen to pop up. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like his contributions to the article space but I have a memory of the styles and honorific prefixes debate from last summer which ended up in a series of revert wars. I don't hold that against LLOTLE per se but when his conduct was questioned in an RFC, he responded in a somewhat frivolous way [9]. He hasn't been involved in serious disputes since then but it gives me cause for concern that he lacks an essential quantity in an admin - willingness to accept that one has made a mistake. David | Talk 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chazz - Responses to (responses). @ 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Sorry to bring up ancient history, but I knew I associated this editor's name with an old RFA and I came up with it--Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottyBoy900Q. At that RFA, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, in fiercely opposing ScottyBoy900Q said, "FWIW, I wouldn't make a good admin either; largely for the same reasons ScottyBoy900Q wouldn't—but then, I'm not nominated, and wouldn't accept if I was :-)." (See responses to Oppose vote #4 for context). I think I understand what he meant--he meant that he is a person who must insist on a point he feels to be right, and that an administrator must be willing to walk away and let others resolve a situation. I take him at his word. Chick Bowen 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't seem to vote support at the time. I'm leaning towards oppose based on the facts complied above in the oppose section. — Moe ε 01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NSL E _(T+C) 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I just can't support someone who creates a vanity article, vandalizes userpages, and issues strong personal attacks. And the RfC... -Greg Asche (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC
Neutral - I have spent a good deal of time reading the RFC and various other user pages, talk pages, etc. in trying to decide how to vote. I've decided to vote neutral as I do have concerns over the condescending nature of some of Lulu’s interactions with other issues, and I don’t feel that an admin behave in that nature. Even recent interactions show this same condescending nature. Sue Anne 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Skimpy on the edit summaries and some questions....like above comments. Pschemp | Talk 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a then newbie, I followed the infamous "Style Wars", and was appalled at the behaviour of LotLE (among others, it must be said), as well as his contemptuous attitude to the RfC process. Since then, our paths haven't crossed, and I'm quite prepared to believe that he's a reformed character, but I just think it needs longer (as per Ronabop and others) before giving him admin powers. Vilcxjo 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) On further reflection, my opposition was based on comparatively ancient history. Lulu seems to have done a lot of good stuff more recently. I'd still have preferred it to have been longer since the problematic period, but the timing of this RfA was not of his choosing so can't be held against him. I also note that some of those who locked horns with him over the Style Wars are now supporters. Can't go that far, I'm afraid, but changing to Neutral. Vilcxjo 16:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. For rationale follow my exchange with Lulu in our talk pages. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]