Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Latish redone

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

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (0/10/0); ended 04:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW v/r - TP 04:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latish redone (talk · contribs) – One of the more helpful contributors to various areas of WP l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 01:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Article improvements such as moving pages to their proper titles when a redirect already exists, deleting articles with consensus at AFD, etc.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Starting the Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS page, which summarized on one page much content that was previously scattered over many pages.

Also note, as User:All in I created the navbox template Template:RWRR currently used for The Real World, Road Rules, and The Challenge (TV series)-related articles. Also have worked on improving the layout and sourcing of The Challenge (TV series) articles.

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 only been in conflict with editors who want to include unsourced information, such as in reality TV articles, and I have dealt with it by enforcing the WP:V, WP:RS and similar policies, including getting an offending editor blocked for repeatedly including unsourced content

I was once blocked for what was called "edit warring" but it was really only three reversions to remove unsourced information from articles which were potential violations of WP:BLP, and the various editors who were watching my contributions at that time were not in collaboration, one thinking that I was "edit warring" based on another's assertion of such. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 03:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. You said you lost access to your previous account since the password was no longer valid due to new restrictions which I believe was due to security. Since an Admin's account necessarily needs to be secure in order to prevent unauthorized access, maybe you confirm you have a secure password. For instance, can you tell us how many characters in length is it, and do you use any numbers in it? LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My password is at least twelve characters in length and does not currently include any numbers. The reason I lost access is because the password for "All in" was literally "All in", which is no longer allowed. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 03:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Latish redone: Latish redone (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Latish redone can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

• Latish redone's stats are now available on on the talk page. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support User has shown that he/she will use admin privileges to the benefit of Wikipedia. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 04:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Less than 50 edits in the past 3 years, and an edit-warring block in the last 300 edits. Sorry, but WP:NOTNOW. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose The editor's first edit in 2007 as User All in vandalized a template, translating it to Spanish. Shortly after, All in requested an RfA. Why stop at RfA? Why not be at ArbComm?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Latish redone doesn't have the benefit of including the edits of All in on record, because there was no way for me to verify to WP that I, Latish redone, am also All in. (All in had "All in" as his password, and when password restrictions were implemented which prohibited passwords like "password", and duplication of the user name, All in was unable to get a new password because he had never registered an email address to which a new password would be sent.) This should work both ways as well: whatever All in may have done does not reflect on Latish redone, because there is no way to verify that they are the same editor. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 02:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   But you said you are the same people, that's verification enough, there is no point in thinking your not "All in" just to overlook their mistakes! You're not making much sense here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I should include All in's contributions and edits with mine in that case. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 03:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose The answer to what the candidate would do with the tools doesn't seem apt: the last involvement with AfD was in 2008 (and even then it was only 5 Discussions); the editor has moved 2 articles themselves (this year, plus a few in 2008) but I don't see any requests to admins to move others. Along with the concerns above, I don't see that the candidate had demonstrated either the need for, or the knowledge of how to apply the mop. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 02:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose -- WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW and concerns with the block log. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose...sorry, but no. Come back in a year+ with much more experience and MAYBE. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per Tofutwitch. Please consider withdrawing your nomination. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect, if I wanted to withdraw my nomination I should have refrained from submitting it in the first place. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 03:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect, I made the suggestion with your interests in mind. No one likes getting avalanched. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Recent block due to WP:3RR violation is also a red flag. Another year of active editing, especially in areas where admins are commonly called upon to wield the mop (e.g. WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, and/or any of the XfD discussions), will help a great deal. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose This user in this account has hardly edited Wikipedia since 2009. See here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose --Surturz (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose . Sorry, but with only 59 edits in three years.- even with the 953 mainspace edits as User:All in, this is nowhere near enough to provide a profile of what you would do as an admin, and the nomination statement does not provide a compelling reason for needing the tools. You do not appear to have followed the links to any of the various guidelines and advice pages on becoming an admin, and what admins do. I also recommend that you should consider withdrawing your nomination - I do not think there is the remotest chance of this RfA succeeding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawing my nomination is addressed above. The short answer is there is no point. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 04:17, 23 November 2011 (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.