Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:11, 18 May 2009 edit129.49.7.125 (talk) →Neutral← Previous edit Revision as of 20:45, 18 May 2009 edit undoNoroton (talk | contribs)37,252 edits →Oppose: response to RPNext edit →
Line 202: Line 202:
#::Indeed, the first part of the comment was spot on, but the second comment left a lot to be desired. If an aspiring admin came here on the back of that comment, they wouldn't stand a chance so I make no exceptions here. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC) #::Indeed, the first part of the comment was spot on, but the second comment left a lot to be desired. If an aspiring admin came here on the back of that comment, they wouldn't stand a chance so I make no exceptions here. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
#:::Your a hard man. Best to hold onto small, isolated things and let them cloud your overall openion of this editors performance over the last number of years. I suppose. ''make no exceptions'' is circular, self-fulfilling ,and indicates a reflexive absence of thought. ] (]) 22:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC) #:::Your a hard man. Best to hold onto small, isolated things and let them cloud your overall openion of this editors performance over the last number of years. I suppose. ''make no exceptions'' is circular, self-fulfilling ,and indicates a reflexive absence of thought. ] (]) 22:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
#:::''If an aspiring admin came here on the back of that comment, they wouldn't stand a chance'', but in this situation we have someone who we've seen act as an admin for years, so the situation is different; people look at nonadministrative actions with candidates because they seldom have an administrative record to look at and they're trying to figure out what kind of administrator that person would be, but here we have that record. ''so I make no exceptions here'' -- why? making distinctions and weighing good and bad points is what these discussions are supposed to be about. -- ] (]) 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
#:I feel I have kept my admin actions and my "contributors comments" separate - however, that a perception of how ''passionate'' I may be in commenting on matters might alter another editors wish to interact with me in my admin capacity does bear consideration. ] (]) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) #:I feel I have kept my admin actions and my "contributors comments" separate - however, that a perception of how ''passionate'' I may be in commenting on matters might alter another editors wish to interact with me in my admin capacity does bear consideration. ] (]) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Does not understand ] and ]. Incivil. Seems to participate in ANI drama to the neglect of more productive admin tasks. ] (]) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. Does not understand ] and ]. Incivil. Seems to participate in ANI drama to the neglect of more productive admin tasks. ] (]) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:45, 18 May 2009

LessHeard vanU

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (11/18/15); Scheduled to end 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – LessHeard vanU Note; this is a Request for Reconfirmation of the Communities trust in my continuing use of the Administrator's bits. It has been two years to the date of filing this Request since the Community entrusted me with the sysop flags, and in that time I have grown into the role of administrator. I acknowledge that the learning curve has, and continues to be, driven as much by my mistakes as by my capacity to learn from my colleagues and in the application of clue as regards interpretation of policy. I am also aware that my views on appropriate adminship are not shared by all members of the community, and that perhaps some do not believe I deserve access to the tools. As regards the latter, I am not in the category Administrators open to recall so am using the mechanism of RfA to give the community the opportunity to weigh my contributions as a sysop and to conclude whether I should continue.

It has always been my intent to be a person of integrity and transparency, and to take those values into my adminship. I have not always succeeded, and once in a while succeeded only too well, but have striven to be honest and fair handed in my dealings. I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses, and I have concentrated my efforts into some areas and not others - I do not see that changing overmuch. While I understand the mechanisms of most area's of the administrators ambit, I feel most comfortable in the discussive and opinion area's of the role. I am still very much the vandal fighter I quickly became when I first got the tools, I have Misplaced Pages:AIV on my watchlist and still put in a bit of work there whenever I sign on. Likewise, I watch and comment frequently the WP:AN and WP:ANI pages (and am aware of some peoples disdain for the regular habitees of these "Drahma Boards"). My continuing content work continues to reduce, but my awareness of my limitations inclines me to consider that by limiting myself to a bit of copy editing and vandal reverting over a range of articles that I contribute much more to the quality of the encyclopedia than if I were to try and compete with the legions of excellent content builders that I try to support by my admin actions.

I ask for your approval and comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As mentioned above, I shall continue to work in the areas in which I am familiar. This is primarily the AN and ANI boards, WP:AIV, and also Requests for Arbitration (where I may have history, or where a principle is being examined), sporadic participation in WP:RfA, patrolling Recent Changes with a view to applying the rollback/delete button on major vandalism including BLP violations, and answering requests on my talkpage - or elsewhere - to the best of my ability.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I am not a content builder, really, and have no shiny FA or GA to point to. If I were to pick an article, it may be Usana - but there is precious little evidence in the history to indicate my contribution; you need to look at my participation on the talkpage to understand how I think I best serve the encyclopedic endeavour. I think I am pretty good as a facilitator and gobetween, especially where I have no strong opinion. Even where I do have a fairly strong opinion, like I have regarding Freemasonry (see the Freemasonry discussion archive on my talkpage), I think it is not easily discernable. As I said in my original RfA, my best work is likely to be on some talkpage somewhere. I hope that I am regarded as a good communicator.
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 am an admin, and am active in both vandal fighting and AN/ANI participation and am not a stranger at WP:RfAR. There are times when I think that all of my wiki life is mired in "conflict", yet there are also times when I seem to serenely progress through the hours, even though the situations may be considered fraught. I have not suffered stress regarding the interactions of others - I have found some individuals to be trying or otherwise annoying but I think it unfair to name them; this is my RFA/Reconfirmation, so it is my record that is to be examined and not theirs and, anyway, per AGF I assume that they were seeking the same thing as I was - a better encyclopedia. Earlier this year though I suddenly found that I was making mistakes at a much higher rate than usual and was concerned enough to take a weeks Wikibreak (I don't think anyone noticed...) to see if it helped - it may have, since my mistake ratio returned to its normal embarrassment factor.
I have been able to handle the stress, with the support of a few colleagues and the benefit of a certain outlet, very well in the past and have no doubt I shall continue to do so. I only have to remind myself, once in a little while at that, that we are working toward providing the best free access and open edited encyclopedia possible... and its voluntary, so why bother fretting?

Question by NuclearWarfare

4 Do you feel that the bureaucrats should have the power to post a note at m:SRP to request your desysopping if they close this request for reconfirmation as unsuccessful?
A. Yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question by User:zzuuzz

5 What was the inspiration for this RfA?
A. Earlier this year in the space of a few days I blocked two accounts who were blameless of any wrongdoing, which not only shocked me that I could get it so wrong but also shocked me that I was so complacent about my admin actions. I took a wikibreak, and contemplated how I should try to ensure that I didn't become stagnant in my use of the tools. This is the end result. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC) ps. Both accounts were quickly unblocked by me, but one after a third party drew my attention to my mistake.

Question by User:CIreland

6 A quick review of your last 500 edits to project space suggests you are inactive or rarely active at WP:AN3, Arbitation Enforcement or on pages concerned with image policy enforcement. Arguably, administrators working in these areas will inevitably antagonise some, often very vocal, editors. Would you recommend this reconfirmation process for an administrator active in one or more of these controversial areas?
A. As, as you point out, I am very much the stranger to those areas of WP and it is therefore very difficult to judge the level and tone of dispute found at those venues, and I would then prefer not to make a definitive statement. However, my belief in the ability of the Bureaucrats to judge which opposes were based on personal antipathy or "revenge" and which ones are routed in problematic behaviour or policy misunderstandings would, I hope, allow admins in such situations to base their decision to request reconfirmation without regard to the type of sysop work they are involved in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question by EdChem

7 What do you consider was your most contentious decision / action as an administrator? What did you learn from the experience? What (if anything) would you do differently if you encounter a similar situation again? EdChem (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
A. Contentious or bad? I have made "contentious" unblocks and a block/unblock with regard to Giano, and what I have learned from these instances is that there are sometimes no right or wrong, but only degrees of good or not good. As regards bad/poor, too many to mention - but I am not so wedded to my actions or decision to worry unduly if they are undone or varied, and I will explain myself if asked and undo my actions myself where there is consensus that my initial action was inappropriate. I cannot change the past, and the only way I can reduce the likelihood of making the same mistakes again is to continue learning and improving my understanding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
8. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what have you done, and what will you do, to uphold them?
A: Rights separate from human rights? Not so much, really. The rights to assumption of good faith, of being treated civilly and with respect, to hold views different from others and to have them heard, to conduct oneself as one pleases (within the law), to be afforded all possible help when required, are part of the basic freedoms of nations of the free world. As such, Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines relating on how editors conduct themselves and should be expected to be treated is simply a re-iteration of that of the outside world - and I am an admin I am expected to uphold and act within them. I hope that I do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions by Erik9

9. Why do you hold the biographies of living persons policy in such low esteem that you feel that users who engage in repeated, blatant, WP:BLP-violating tabloid-sourced defamation over a period of months , despite multiple talk-page block warnings should not be blocked, but editors who dare to oppose the defamation should be blocked without warning? (further discussion of this issue is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report)
A: I do not hold BLP concerns in low esteem; indeed, one of the reasons why I choose not to concentrate in that area of Misplaced Pages is that I do not feel that the project does enough to protect these articles, or assist those who are committed to ensuring that unsourced negative content is removed promptly and serial offenders discouraged or removed as I think I would very quickly burn out if I were to involve myself in either combating the problem now existing or attempt to change the consensus that BLP articles are sufficiently protected from the effects of negative or biased editing. I have supported every instance of the promotion of a policy or process to further protect BLP's that I have been aware of, and I err on the side of protectionism when I encounter any BLP violation query I come across.
I shall respond regarding the specific incident you refer to under your !vote. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Please review Durova's comment below. Why have you supported and socialized with the sockpuppeteer and female impersonator extraordinaire Poetlister?


Questions by Lankiveil

11a., what percentage/number of people would need to support this RFA for you to determine that you still had consensus to remain as an administrator? The usual 75-80% range? Or more? Or less?
A: The 'Crat makes the decision. Whether the 'Crat then makes the contact with a Steward should the Request have failed, or whether I am asked to do it, to effect the change I don't know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
11b., if the consensus at this discussion is that you are no longer trusted to hold the tools (per either your answer to 11a or a bureaucrat decision), what will you do? Will you continue editing as a regular user and re-apply for adminship at some future point?
A: I believe I would carry on - I have spent a considerable time in the last three years here. I would still likely participate in the admin boards as a commentator, and issue vandal warnings and report to AIV instead of actioning them, but I may see if my content writing skills are as indifferent as they were prior to my devoting time to the sysop role. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

This is quite important to me, and why I am placing myself within this process! I want to know how the Community feels about my record over the last two years. If you intend to support generally but have some reservations, then please make those concerns known. Even if they don't qualify as reservations, please comment where you may think I would be better involving myself more or less. If you are opposing because of specific concerns, detail them! If there are general concerns, refer to them. If you simply dislike me or otherwise think I should not have the mop, well, reasons are going to give your views more weight. As it is, I shall be dropping over to the 'Crats noticeboard as soon as this goes live to give them fair warning of what I have done, and suggest that they consider how to approach a reconfirmation of a existing adminship over than the more familiar RfA's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

  • You're a good admin (actions look good, I haven't observed anything objectionable, and all that jazz) but I wish you'd edit articles a bit more instead of AN/I (1528 edits O_O). Editor Review would a better venue for this. On another note, you've edited at the same, steady rate for over three years. That's pretty impressive, but don't get burnt out. Maxim(talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    There is also the recently minted Administrator review. Though not much traffic there =) –xeno 03:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js — neuro 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support
  1. Not an ounce of reservation, honored to be the first to support - An editor review might have sufficed, however. :) Everywhere I've seen you, you have shown diligence, responsibility, and a firm ability to be trusted. Keep up the astounding work. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Not sure what the point of this is, but I support nonetheless. –Juliancolton |  00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support I thought you were an admin already. OH WAIT. Nonetheless, your work is great and I've had positive interactions whenever I run into you. FlyingToaster 00:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Honest answer? If this was a "normal" RFA, I'd probably oppose you on lack of significant mainspace contributions (although might well have made an exception on seeing The Raincoats on that list). But judging you by your admin actions, I can't see anything to fault you. As I've said before (usual suspects, don't bother replying to this – I've heard them all already), I think the default position in any Misplaced Pages process should be the status quo, and the onus on those proposing the change to make a case for change – so default to "keep" at XfD, "no action" at RFAR, AIV etc, and "oppose" at RFA and proposed policy changes, unless someone can make a convincing case for change being an improvement. In your case, I see nothing to warrant a desysopping, so go with support. – iridescent 00:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support You've always been helpful to me. Soap /Contributions 00:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. What Julian said. — Jake Wartenberg 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. You've done fine. AGK 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support - solid admin. An inspiration to new moppers. Why are we here? Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support Complete no-brainer. Isn't he? Rodhullandemu 00:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support - I see no reason for his use of tools to be taken away. Great admin all around. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Please read the nom. LessHeard is an admin currently. Killiondude (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Corrected from the previous version before I realized this was a reconfirmation. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support of course. Echo the "why are we here" sentiment, and yet...I think it's WP:BOLD to do this. Somebody's got to be first. I support that as well.  Frank  |  talk  00:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. In the words of Bertie Wooster: "Well, I say, what?" --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 00:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support -download ׀ sign! 00:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. Are you kidding me? I wondered when LHVU stepped down the adminship as soon as I set my eyes on "LessHeard vanU 2" from the RfA list. Well, this is not a right venue for reconfirmation on your adminship, but if you want my opinion, I'll say I consider you're one of fine administrators in the Misplaced Pages. --Caspian blue 01:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. I supported you two years ago with the rationale of "Support an excellent self-nomination. No issues here. Acalamari 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)". Guess what? I get to use that same rationale for you again, with the addition that I congratulate you for wanting to be accountable for your actions. I have no problem with this. Acalamari 01:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  16. LessHeard vanU is a civil, level-headed and straight-shooting fellow, and one of the site's more active administrators/vandal-fighters. Yes, he's been involved in drama every now and then, but always as a voice of sane and he isn't afraid to cut through crap. He has performed his job well over the past two years, and I see no reason not to let him continue on. Also, excellent nomination statement, and I applaud him for his willingness to be held accountable. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support This isn't necessarily the proper place to get input from the community, but nonetheless LessHeard is doing a fine job as an admin. Timmeh!(review me) 02:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  18. I see where Durova's coming from. And yet, I haven't substantially changed my view from Number 9, Number 9. I sometimes couldn't agree "less" with my esteemed colleague, but I always have believed he acts in good faith and acts to correct his errors when brought to his attention... We are none of us perfect, and I cannot ask for more. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  19. I've always admired your work in dispute resolution, and I think much of what you say in these venues is entirely on point. Speedy keep, imo. –xeno 02:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support I have seen nothing to suggest that my support of two years ago was misplaced; LHvU has proved a fine admin. Joe 03:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support I'll have a go at a bit of a "review" here I think. My first impressions of you were not particularly great; you appeared to be cold, calculating, and unemotional in your posts. A statement of dislike for fluffy kittens and soulful eyed puppies didn't really make me feel particularly "warm" towards you either. I learned once again not to judge a book by its cover. After further observation, I believe you to be thoughtful and considerate editor, and always willing to AGF. Your admin actions indicate that you're willing to review your own work, admit mistakes, and work to make things right. I'd much rather have an admin who is willing to consider the possibility of a mistake, than "bot" admin that can do no wrong. I've also noticed that you're willing to help anyone who would ask (and I will follow up on that RIP thing in the near future). I appreciate the work you're doing, and even if I don't agree with you on something, I hope you continue to serve the community for many years to come. Regarding "this" second RfA: My initial reaction (as an American), would be "why?". Having gotten to know a more global community, I believe I do understand a bit more now than I would have when I started. I don't know if there is a particular word or phrase for it, but I've seen it before - and all I know how to refer to it as would be: "British integrity" or "British dignity". Good form I believe, and I support your request of adminship. — Ched :  ?  04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support Administrative actions have been excellent without any exception that I have seen. I caution that a recent highly intemperate post to Jimbo's talk page might have caused me to oppose if this were an initial RFA, but as long as such displays of temper don't affect admin work, I can support. Looie496 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  23. Nathan 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support User is not a crook Arma virumque cano (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    comment: account is involved in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/TomPhan NVO (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support - Obviously, one of our better admins. Generally a very nice editor. We can all make mistakes and he seems to be trying his best to rectify any errors. — R 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support A very nice editor who deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979 04:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  27. I thought you were already an admin support. Keeper | 76 05:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  28. Support. A couple editors more or less, who cares, it's shrinking anyway.NVO (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  29. Support on grounds of dislike of fluffy kittens. Peter Damian (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  30. Support - You are doing a good work as an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  31. Support - Oppose process, support candidate. — neuro 08:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  32. Support - Dureo (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  33. Really pointless this, but anyway support. Pmlinediter   10:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  34. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  35. I don't see this as disruptive, and I don't really see what the problem is. RfA exists for the community to express trust in a candidate. If an admin feels that the community trust needs to be reaffirmed for whatever reason, this seems as good a place as any to receive it. The nomination clearly lists the reasons for the request, and while I'm against drive-by reconfirmations, this one isn't. In any case, support. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  36. Yep. One of the good guys. I had some argybargy with this user a few years back, and though I was very much in the wrong, he was good about it after, and no hard feelings were held. I generally find him to be a voice of reason and calm when following treads, and find my self agreeing with his position far more often than not. Ceoil (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  37. Support: Yes! seicer | talk | contribs 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  38. Support - of course, from what I've seen, he looks like a good admin. Being characterised as anti-BLP is ridiculous - IMO the block of Erik was a little harsh, but to characterise it as standing up for BLP-violators is erroneous, as is made clear, that was not the reason for the block, nor did any other admin feel that the points being raised by the user were due any further action. – Toon 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, you believed that my last report on WP:AN merited further action: giving Twiddlebug his last, final, we really-mean-it-this-time warning . Erik9 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    I meant administrative action. Specifically blocking, which was what you suggested, although the user was inactive. – Toon 17:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  39. Support- From what I can see, you've been a good admin. Posting here is pretty bold, but you probably should have gone to WP:RFC or WP:ADREV. However, posting it here shows that your are not afraid to be bold. I believe that there should be a mandatory administrator review every 25,000 edits or every year(whichever is shorter). It support your notion for reconfirmation and only wish that certain admins would also do the same.Smallman12q (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  40. Misplaced Pages needs more people with the balls to say this sort of thing in response to outrageous hypocrisy, prudery, and dishonesty, and a lot fewer of the other kind. I also admire the candidate's integrity in submitting to this process, despite the certain knowledge that there would inevitably be a number of opposes based merely on the principle of the thing, and nothing to do with the candidate's record as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  41. Support - Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  42. PirateSmackK 19:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  43. Done nothing wrong, no reason for this to even take place.  GARDEN  20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  44. Support, has always appeared reasonable to me. Everyking (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  45. Support - Sensible, which is high, though not flowery, praise. // BL \\ (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  46. I'm pretty sure you're one of the last admins that need to be here, so it makes sense that you are. It's preaching to the choir. Keep up the good work. Keegan 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  47. Support - I have seen no behaviour from you that would constitute abuse of the tools. The occasional mistake, but admins are human too. I also support this because every admin should be this self-aware and this quick to seek significant and binding community input. Kudos. //roux   21:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  48. Support: This Admin is honest and well meaning. Can't ask for anything more. Giano (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  49. Support I think I have disagreed with LessHeard vanU a fair amount of occasions. Nevertheless I do trust him as an administrator. — Aitias // discussion 21:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  50. No reason to believe this user can't do well with the tools. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  51. Absolutely. Majorly talk 21:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  52. Support Will be able to do alot of good with his new tools. --Abce2|Howdy! 22:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    This is a reconfirmation RFA. But, hey, don't let the fact that you apparently haven't read very much of this RFA prevent you from participating :) Erik9 (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    LHvU might consider making the "this is a reconfirmation RfA" portion of his candidacy statement more obvious, as a number of people do seem to be missing it. (Maybe some oh-so-loved <blink> tags? :-)) I do wonder whether the tendency to not read the opening statement is indicative of the average Wikipedian's attention to detail? AGK 22:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  53. I don't think you have done anything that would warrant a desysop. J.delanoyadds 23:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  54. Support Because I didn't get to support your last RFA. Amerique 01:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  55. Yeah, might as well. DS (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  56. wasn't going to participate but thought I had better counteract some of the ridiculous oppose reasons (yes he still has my support) Viridae 02:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  57. I've only had minor interactions with him but from what I've seen, LessHeard is good at helping out around here doing admin stuff. Keep up the good work :-) Killiondude (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  58. I find it rather silly to come to RfA to validate a continuing adminship, but if it's meaningful to LessHeard vanU, far be it from me to criticize. (I also never understood the practice of married couples "renewing their vows", but I refrain from telling that to people who renew their wedding vows.) I can testify that LHvU has made mistakes (such as blocking me once by mistake). However, I believe that mistakes will inevitably happen when someone is working hard to make a difference, and I can testify that this user conscientiously admits mistakes and corrects them quickly (such as removing the mistaken block to my account after 3 minutes). I am glad to add my support. --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    No, he doesn't "conscientiously admit mistakes and correct them quickly" - that's why he's still defending his completely bogus block placed upon my account to this very day , despite the fact that no one else participating in the discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report found the block to be even remotely justified. Erik9 (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Erik, you've presented evidence which you believe makes LHvU unsuited to continuing as an administrator, and you've also made many comments in response to Support comments, could you please now just leave the RfA to run its course, leaving other users to consider the evidence you have presented along with the other diffs that are available to users in order for them to decide how to comment. Everybody has their own thoughts on these issues and to chide people for not exactly agreeing with you, that's really not fair. Could you also cease making pointy comments in your edit summaries, if you feel the need to tally the number of comments in this RfA, then fine, but please don't use the opportunity for more commentary - it's not very good form. Nick (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  59. Support, decent admin. I would actually support making reconfirmation a requirement, but only after something like 8 years as an admin. Cardamon (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  60. Support, Overall, he's decent enough when he's dealing with people who are not me. Let's just leave it at that. -- Noroton (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  61. Support. All administrators should go through this process of gauging community trust every two years, at least. Drawn Some (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  62. Support, you've already been through this and shouldn't have to go through it again. If theres a real problem with any of your actions it should be brought up at WP:ANI. Matty (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  63. Support. No overall concerns with your use of admin tools. I'm not sure if I think this RfA's a great idea, but to answer the question posed: Yes, I am happy for you to continue as an admin. ~ mazca 07:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  64. Support. Over time, I have found myself on the opposite side of LessHeard vanU on almost every topic and discussion we've ever had (not many actually, I only remember 3 or 4) but more to the point, several incidents have made me question his judgment. But, at the end of the day, one has to come to terms with the fact that LessHeard has a reputation for fairness and for at least trying to see the POV from the other side (even if he does need glasses) and that counts for something. FWIW, the serious oppose votes are bordering on absurd humor and will likely bring in more supports. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  65. Support. A glutton for punishment, and coming back for seconds, so let him have it! --Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  66. Support LHvU retaining his adminship; I've seen nothing to suggest any reason he shouldn't and I find the opposes highly unconvincing. Oppose this unhelpful method of doing this, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  67. Support You look like a good admin - but please don't do this again. RfA is messy enough, we don't need to add administrators looking to buttress their PR positions to the mix. Ray 12:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  68. Support LessHeard vanU is one of the admins I admire the most on wikipedia, he does not hesitate to take responsibility for his actions and he is always very open minded, a brilliant administrator Spitfire 13:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  69. I do not think it was necessary to open this discussion, but here we are. An insufficient level of support will result in removal of the tools, and that would be wrong in this case. To be clear: I trust LHvU to continue not to abuse the tools. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  70. Again, not necessary, too much drama, but Support. The comment he posted to Jimbo cited by one of the opposes was what finally pushed me over the line to support. That and WR, which I think is a necessary gadfly and I only wish they did their work better. He seems to have done his job well here; I gladly give him my vote to reconfirm his use of the tools. Don't expect me to follow, though, dude.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  71. Lower % than I would have thought, so I'll take the time to comment. LHvU has (IMHO) occasionally made mistakes, highlighted by a few of the diffs supplied in the oppose and neutral sections. However, until we find scores of people who never make mistakes, we don't have the luxury of desysopping experienced, clueful admins because they aren't perfect. Usually has pretty good advice for people. It appears, from some of the diffs, that he should probably make more of an effort to not edit/comment/block while annoyed. Overall, LHvU continues to have my complete confidence. -Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  72. Support I think that this is really the wrong place to go seeking re-confirmation of adminship, but I do understand LHvU's reasoning as stated in his self-nom. I also understand that nobody is perfect, and all admins make, or have made, mistakes. Recognising them and correcting them is fine, and he has done that. Agonising over them is not always necessary, but LHvu's doing so is, in my view, a plus score in his reconfirmation. --Anthony.bradbury 16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I oppose the existence of this, though I don't oppose his adminship. LessHeard vanU, though a bit of a drama-lover, is a very good admin in practice. This however looks more like an attention-seeking stunt than anything else. There are other ways to place one's name on the lips of everyone come ArbCom nomination time than this kind of thing. :) If you really want feedback, open a page in your userspace. This is not what RfA is for. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Then you're in the wrong section. Synergy 00:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    See my response to Neutral#1 - there is a definite end result if there is not the confidence in my use of the tools. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Very brief bit of meta-discussion, even though LHVU said he didn't want it; as we don't have a formal reconfirmation or WP:Requests for de-adminship process, only RFA has the "balls on the railroad track" element. Quite aside from the general lack of participation and "preaching to the choir" element of RFC/Editor Review, even a spectacularly negative RFC, editor review, AOR recall process etc never results in change; I'm sure we can all think of instances which have ended with the admin in question going on as before. Things like this only cause drama if people let them. – iridescent 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    It is not accurate to say that AOR never results in change. See the past requests... not perfect, by any means but does sometimes result in change. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    For some reason, the reference section (and cats) aren't displaying in the article Siward, Earl of Northumbria. Can someone fix this? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC) --Hey, if we're gonna make use of venues because of traffic rather than relevance, I might as well ask it here. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    CNR... current version works for me. (firefox3, WinXP) Do you have a diff to one that doesn't work? ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Erm... ;) ... using the same browser. It sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. At this moment in time, viewing this, it doesn't display. Can't work it out ... ?"/ Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, this is not the proper venue. Nakon 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. I oppose, not this user's adminship, but the practice of putting forth a reconfirmation RfA for no reason. It should have been an editor review and I've half a mind to close it now as disruptive posturing. Andre (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    I also disagree with this, but I would contest that Q5 confirms that it is not for 'no reason'. — neuro 10:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Reluctant Oppose I have no reason to question this admin's abilities, as the record of achievement is positive. However, I am in agreement that is an inappropriate vehicle for seeking feedback on admin performance, and only for that reason I am putting my chips here. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. pointless drama I oppose all needless reconfirmation rfas. Spartaz 12:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    So far, there is no drama but that of the opposers. Well played. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 12:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Strongest possible oppose One of Misplaced Pages's worst anti-BLP administrators, LessHeard vanU actively obstructs the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy and supports the defamation of living people using material gleaned from tabloids such as the National Enquirer , going so far as to block editors for daring to uphold WP:BLP's source quality standards (further discussion of this issue is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report). Erik9 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Er… what? Of those 10 diffs you've posted, not one is either from or about LHVU. – iridescent 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    The diffs describe the misconduct of the user who LessHeard vanU refused to block, but blocked my account for reporting. Erik9 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Blocking was unnecessary as the user had already stopped; he blocked you for forum shopping, I unblocked you. The user didn't BLP-violate again, which, for me, indicates that a block for the user was indeed unnecessary. – Toon 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    That's Monday-morning quarterbacking. Since having precognitive abilities is not a requirement for Misplaced Pages editors, I could not have been expected to predict with certainty what User:Twiddlebug would or would not have done if his account were not blocked. Erik9 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Odd American sports metaphors aside, it remains true. Describing LessHeard vanU as "...actively obstruct the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy and support the defamation of living people using material gleaned from tabloids..." is clearly a stretch; the latter statement is potentially defamatory in itself, ironically. You were blocked, but this cannot be honestly construed as supporting defamation. – Toon 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    To refuse to block a user engaging in repeated, blatant tabloid-sourced defamation despite multiple talk-page warnings while simultaneously blocking the editor requesting administrative action against the slanderer on the pretextual grounds of "forum shopping" which no administrator or other editor reviewing the block actually believed to have occurred (for example, see as well as the discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report) is most reasonably construed as "...actively obstruct the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy and support the defamation of living people using material gleaned from tabloids..." To take wholly unjustified administrative action against an editor making a legitimate request for the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy produces a distinct chilling effect on future editors' willingness to participate in WP:BLP enforcement, as they may reasonably fear that LessHeard vanU will find some pretext for blocking them if they post a report on WP:AN. I stand behind my statement completely based on the evidence presented. Erik9 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    In short, you are protesting that I did not block someone after they had ceased making the edits which were in violation of WP:BLP that you had reported, but did block you as you were, in my view, violating WP:BATTLE by shopping for the same block in different venues. The warnings worked on the BLP violating editor, yet comments to you did not (the denied report to AIV, with forum shopping warning, being conspicuous by its absence). I recognise that you are incensed that you have a block record - even if it notes that you were swiftly unblocked with my agreement - but note that you are indifferent to the sensibilities of the other editor who you wished to have punished. Had that editor continued to violate BLP they would have been sanctioned, and by me if it had been brought to my notice as I noted in my block rationale, but they didn't. Can you provide an example of another editor whom I have blocked for pointing out vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    You're blatantly misrepresenting the situation. I made the report on WP:AN for which you blocked my account only after the administrator who responded to the report on WP:AIV asked me to bring the matter back to WP:AN , and, in the same talk page edit, repudiated his prior claim that my post on WP:AIV was itself "forum shopping", since he conceded that the WP:AIV report concerned edits that User:Twiddlebug had made after the initial report on WP:AN was closed. To claim that it's "forum shopping" to make a report on WP:AN when an administrator expressly instructed me to bring the matter there defies any reasonable construction of the term. Of course, you're simply rehashing a block rationale that was already found to be bogus per the discussions on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report -- the fact that you're still defending this block suggests a proclivity to issue more inappropriate blocks that will further injure WP:BLP enforcement on Misplaced Pages. That you claim in response to my question above "one of the reasons why I choose not to concentrate in that area of Misplaced Pages is that I do not feel that the project does enough to protect these articles, or assist those who are committed to ensuring that unsourced negative content is removed promptly and serial offenders discouraged or removed as I think I would very quickly burn out if I were to involve myself..." while performing actions that cause other editors to be "burnt out" on WP:BLP enforcement (finding pretextual reasons to block an editor who is seeking administrative assistance in enforcing the policy, then defending the block to the death) is deeply disturbing. Erik9 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    I also find your comment "you are indifferent to the sensibilities of the other editor who you wished to have punished" to reflect excessive solicitude for an editor whose sole mainspace contributions have been tabloid-sourced slander. Administrators who seek the most bizarrely and illogically justified excuses to block productive, valuable contributors for the putative protection of users who have done nothing but cause trouble need to seriously re-revaluate their priorities. Erik9 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. As with Spartaz, I oppose pointless (or pointy) RFAs. In every interaction I have had with you, I'm sure you are a fine admin, but there are more appropriate fora for being patted on the back than an RFA. Except for those resulting from a community recall proposal, I really don't like reconfirmation requests at all. --B (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Did you mean except for those stemming from a community recall proposal? –xeno 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, corrected. --B (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Erik That seemed like an abuse of power to me. Dlohcierekim 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Per Erik, very abusive indeed.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 16:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per others above, not seeing the reasoning for this (seemingly) arbitrary "confirmation". RfA isn't for pats on the back or getting feedback. That docks points right there. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Presently, those "pats on the back" are being aimed a little bit lower... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    You're getting the pats in the section above. This section is where we kick you when you're down! --Stephen 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. Oppose for your constant incivility issues as well as Erik's diffs, which indicate an absolutely unacceptable attitude toward potential BLP issues. That aside, LessHeard's mainspace contributions are extremely thin; sysops should be top-notch editors foremost. TAway (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Too many administrators currently. - DougsTech (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Quite frankly, I'm surprised why you weren't desysopped on the spot for this ridiculous comment to Jimbo - that is probably the worst bit of incivility I've ever seen on this project and I don't want an administrator acting that way. I've seen you losing your cool quite a bit over the past few months, using expletives when they aren't needed at all - whilst I don't question your integrity, I don't think you're currently in the right mind set on-wiki to admin effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Calling for a desysop over that indicates a little bit of over excitement on your part I think; perhaps his post was inelegantly put overall, but still, the gist of the first para was spot on. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, the first part of the comment was spot on, but the second comment left a lot to be desired. If an aspiring admin came here on the back of that comment, they wouldn't stand a chance so I make no exceptions here. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Your a hard man. Best to hold onto small, isolated things and let them cloud your overall openion of this editors performance over the last number of years. I suppose. make no exceptions is circular, self-fulfilling ,and indicates a reflexive absence of thought. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    If an aspiring admin came here on the back of that comment, they wouldn't stand a chance, but in this situation we have someone who we've seen act as an admin for years, so the situation is different; people look at nonadministrative actions with candidates because they seldom have an administrative record to look at and they're trying to figure out what kind of administrator that person would be, but here we have that record. so I make no exceptions here -- why? making distinctions and weighing good and bad points is what these discussions are supposed to be about. -- Noroton (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I feel I have kept my admin actions and my "contributors comments" separate - however, that a perception of how passionate I may be in commenting on matters might alter another editors wish to interact with me in my admin capacity does bear consideration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Does not understand WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Incivil. Seems to participate in ANI drama to the neglect of more productive admin tasks. Skinwalker (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. Strong oppose - highly incivil user, prone to drama, likes to attack people on off-site message boards, and shows little understanding of our important policies and functions. This user should never have been made an admin to begin with. If there was ever justification of DougsTech saying there are too many admin, this user is that justification. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Note, Ottava, who is so concerned with off-site messages and, would you believe, drama <cough>, emailed me to influence my vote here. How about that. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    1. Misplaced Pages Review is a site that bashes people, and he has participated in that. 2. I never challenged anyone's right to contact people or talk to them personally. 3. I didn't hide that I emailed you, and I didn't state anything that would influence you. Quite the contrary, I pointed out that we have definitely separated in philosophy and view-points from the time that we stopped being friends. The intent was obvious from the line (in the email): "If you think he is one of the good guy's, then I think the gulf between us has definitely widened." I have no qualms against stating this in public, nor do I care if people know how I feel about him. However, the email was how you (Ceoil) and I have differed. If anything, it expresses disappointment in what I see in you as a decline. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Your lack of self awarness never fails to amaze. My point, however, is made. This is not the first time you approached me in this way, and absolutely shows how the back channel, canvassing IRC mob, works. You can rationalise all you want, but dont underestimate the rest of us. You were quite happy to parcipate on WR yourself while an outcast on WP. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Canvassing means to contact people who haven't weighed in. Your use of definitions only compounds with your inability to judge character. The "rest" of you can like him all you want, but it is obvious that he was friends with Poetlister and other trouble makers, and if those are the kind of people you want, why are you even here? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, and it may make you happy to know that LessHeard is a prominent member of Misplaced Pages Review, which also posts links that actually fits the definition of canvassing. So, on that rationale, you would be putting your anger towards him. And I was -never- an outcast on Misplaced Pages. I only participated at Misplaced Pages Review in order to defend Wikiversity from attacks during and after we banned Moulton. So, next time you claim something, try not to lie so blatantly. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    By "prominent member" I assume you mean "ignored by almost everyone most of the time over a long period"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Prominent member is a polite way of saying that you use the website to attack people. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - If you don't have confidence in your own abilities (ergo, this RfA), then why should the rest of us? If someone had a legitimate issue with your admin abilities, there are avenues available to start such a discussion. If every two years we have to go through this exercise to "reaffirm" our support for you, we're probably better off with someone else. To borrow a phrase from above, starting such a thread shows a lack of self-awareness and raises questions about your judgement and priorities. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. I dislike this sort of grandstanding to begin with, but it's a fairly foolish thing to do when one has done things which would derail a new nomination - the examples of bad judgement listed here are not on in an admin. Rebecca (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, that is the point, isn't it? Unless there is an incident that rises to the level of a AOR, RfC or RfAR then there is little one can generally do with regard to an "established admin" if there are concerns. However, and further to my response to Ryan's oppose, until when someone has the ability to program an adminbot then there are going to be instances of less than stellar decisions, actions and behaviour from the sysop community. Stuff happens, but there are those who would hide it to protect "status" and there are those of us who believe in integrity/prefer grandstanding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, switched from Neutral. Too many issues raised: in particular, the block of Erik9, the support for Poetlister, and this remarkable piece of incivility on Jimbo's talkpage. Robofish (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
You do realize there are other ways to elicit feedback? EditorReview? RfC? Invite those who partook in your last RFA to evaluate and comment? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but none of them comes with a clean result of desysop should the community decide that the candidate does not deserve the tools. This one does. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
So what are we talking here? If this does not pass you had back the mop? This is risky and ill advised. I've seen these not go well due to some !voters protesting the whole thing. Dlohcierekim 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC).
Reconformation RfAs is the possible future but not the present.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. Neutral per Dlohcierekim. One 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. I almost never oppose any RfA, yet in addition to the procedural doubts about this undertaking there are more serious concerns. LessHeard vanU is a prime example of a lightweight mainspace editor who invests more effort into determining who passes RfA then in actually building the encyclopedia. I've never known him to misuse the tools, yet he has a track record of assuming the best of troublesome users and too little good faith of established ones. Despite an open offer toward administrators to share my portion of the offsite evidence that led to Poetlister's 2007 siteban, LessHeard vanU never asked to see it and welcomed Poetlister's return a year later. LessHeard even appears to criticize ArbCom for not giving Poetlister a full vindication. He was notably silent at the request for comment that later revealed Poetlister had acquired three admin accounts on a sister project including a bureaucrat sock and a checkuser sock. Similarly toward Moulton, LessHeard was ready to unblock but I was unable to find any participation in the discussions that decided indeffing was indeed necessary. LessHeard vanU can suppose good faith of experienced users, but he has to be talked into it in dialog that can be both delicate and exhausting. I'm sorry to say that after this generous gesture, but this is a request for honest opinions. Brace yourself when you ask that question. Durova 01:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    In addition to the above, LessHeard is a member of Misplaced Pages Review and had contact with Poetlister at that website. Moulton is also a long term member there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Wow... he supports and pals around with the sockpuppeteer and female impersonator extraordinaire Poetlister? And I though his block of my account for trying to exclude tabloid-sourced slime from a biography of a living person was bad. When we have a candidate at RFA, it's good to know which side they're on :) Erik9 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Probably not worth coming out of my hole for stupid drama, but LessHeard vanU was far from the only person who got fooled by Poetlister. Alison and Lar also expressed serious doubts; I recall Iridescent confessed to me that she got fooled; and there must be a few other names I've forgotten by now - oh yes, Firsfron of Ronchester. I take much of the blame for what transpired in May 2008. I did consult ArbCom but didn't believe them. I didn't consult you (Durova) probably because I didn't take notice of your offer, and anyway it was a year later, and anyway I was not an admin. My point is, you really can't fault the guy for that. By the way, if I'm here anyway, let me say that Ryan Postlethwaite's reason for opposing is a reason why I would support - it's time that Jimbo got some honest, uncomfortable feedback. I would say it more respectfully, but it was within bounds. Shalom. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Misplaced Pages:Administrator review. Let me know if this goes pear-shaped, and I'll probably bump it up to a support. -- zzuuzz 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - I have no objection to LHVU retaining the tools, but I agree with the view that RFA shouldn't be used for this. As well as Administrator review, linked above, there's also Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall. I'd suggest that administrators uncertain about whether they have community support come up with a set of requirements for recall and list themselves there, rather than re-submitting themselves to RFA. Robofish (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Switching to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    In LHvU's defense, Administrator review is a fledgling venue that is pretty low on everyone's radar right now and AOR requires one to come up with recall criteria; a painstaking exercise in precision (if one doesn't want to leave themselves open to abuse of process). –xeno 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    AOR, and AdminReview possibly, are triggered by egregious examples of conduct, and RfC/RfAR by long term abuse. What process allows review on a time served basis, with the potential of dignified de-adminning if problems are found? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Pft! LHvU, you've put me in a position where I don't know how to vote, so please do suggest how I should, based on my following criteria and reasons. :) I support your adminship and have 100% trust in you. Yet, per Deacon, I oppose the existence of this, and users who've potentially furthered horribly wrong precedents. Help me. :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Suggestion: "Support - Oppose process, support candidate. — neuro(talk) 08:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)" (except don't sign as neuro). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    weak support/neutral LOL reconfirmation. I think you are a decent admin. Unfortunately there is no easy way to get bad admins desyssoped and they will never come here for reconfirmation ever. :(--PirateSmackK 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    What if this is the first step toward getting to that? Suppose we started asking all RfA candidates if they'll stand for reconfirmation? Suppose we later on made it automatic? It could happen.  Frank  |  talk  16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    That will never happen. 95% admins will oppose any such process of automatic reconfirmation. Switching to support by the way, Support% seems to have dropped below 80 PirateSmackK 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Competent enough admin, however disapprove of using RfA in this way. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Same as above — try Misplaced Pages:Administrator review. —Animum (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Neutral per PhilKnight. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Wrong venue. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per above. America69 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. Neutral Being not open to recall yet attempting to solicit the support of editors for a sort of moral boost gives me the impression that the editor has a guilty conscience or has lost confidence in themselves but still wants to be "part of". But as this is a "reconfirmation" and since I wasn't around for the initial RfA I guess I would have to be Neutral. -- OlEnglish 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Based on contributions (i.e. no evidence that the tools are likely to be misused) I would support if this was a genuine request. However, this looks for all the world to be moral grandstanding. As someone who thinks WP:AOR is a nonsense and actually weakens accountability rather than improves it, I have no wish to encourage the development of another system, especially one that combines the defects of AOR and RfA. I think this is a silly request, but not one worth losing the tools for, therefore I am Neutral. -- Mattinbgn\ 05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Neutral I wish I could support, but I can't, sorry. :-( Meetare Shappy 11:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. WHACK!!!
    Whack!


    I believe that sums up my position on this nonsense. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. This really drives home how desperately we need a proper venue where the community can reconfirm or desysop admins. One with teeth, not Misplaced Pages:Administrator review. This is not an oppose to the candidate's adminship, hence my placement in the Neutral category. -kotra (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU 2: Difference between revisions Add topic