Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ricardo Lagos

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

This nomination has been removed due to lack of support. Moe ε 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Lagos

Final (0/7/1) ended 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Ricardo Lagos (talk · contribs) – I have been here in Wikipedia for a few hours and I have decided I am interesting in improving this project. I have been accused of vandalism but that was hacking, I assure you. Please vote yes.

I accept.Ricardo Lagos 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support. I will probably be the only one to support my nomination. Note that I can vote for myself, since the policy (from what I can understand) is that nominees SHOULD NOT vote for themselves, not that they CANNOT. Ricardo Lagos 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should not vote for themselves is the same as cannot. Moe ε 22:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Cite? You should be more clear. Ricardo Lagos 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Moe ε 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I don't see anything referring to candidates voting for themselves. Ricardo Lagos 22:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell it doesn't. But on WP:RFA, in 'About RFA' under 'Voting and commenting' it says "votes on your own candidacy are not counted and may be removed." --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose; created under an hour ago, most edits either questionable ([1] [2]) or vandalism ([3]). Username also appears to breach Username policy (based on former Chilean president Ricardo Lagos). Urge withdrawl. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Do I really need to say why? Moe ε 22:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Obvious reasons. --light darkness^(talk) 22:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Vandal. [4] --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IT WAS A HACK! Ricardo Lagos 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on user's talk page. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Don't waste everyone's time. Delist without delay. David | Talk 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't have to vote if you didn't vote to. Sorry to waste your time. Ricardo Lagos 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User stupidly admits to hacking wikipedia( even though they didn't), supports themselves, pretty sure this is a joke delist post haste! Mike _{(T C)} 22:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Only article edit was vandalism. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 22:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

I said that the vandalism was a hack, Smurrayinchester. And Moe Epsilon, please do say why. Regarding my username, I chose "Ricardo Lagos" because that IS indeed my real name. Lagos is a pretty common surname in Spanish and I really don't think I should be forced to change my username just cause another guy has the name name. Ricardo Lagos 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your account has been hacked (very unlikely, but AGF), you've only been at Wikipedia under an hour. That isn't nearly enough time to learn anything about Wikipedia. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
I have been anonymously editing and learning about Wikipedia for over a year. Ricardo Lagos 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that your first and fourth edits were vandalism to Ricardo Lagos (the article), and your user page consists of "See Ricardo Lagos" (pointing to the article)... what does that mean? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A ver, what do you mean first and fourth edits? As far as I know, there was only one vandalism to Ricardo Lagos by a vandal hacking my account. Secondly, I linked to the Ricardo Lagos page from my user as a pun on my name (I know pun isn't the right word, but I can't think of another one at the moment. Hope that answers your concern. Ricardo Lagos 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's refering to these edits: (your 1st and your 4th edit). And this edit too. Moe ε 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds lame, but I truly hadn't known that the hacker had vandalized Lagos' article twice. Ricardo Lagos 22:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, that is lame. Lame that you have wasted everyones time in a nomination not worth having. Your excuse of a hack is lame too. Now, the "hacker" edited only minutes before you, can you explain that? Can you explain the coincidence that seems to be your username and the name of the article that the "hacker" also vandalized? Moe ε 22:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

If you edited anonymously here for over a year, could you please cite and show us examples of work you did as an anonymous user? And if you were anonymous, how come you never registered until now?--Metros232 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I had the IP address 200.119.238.115 [[5]] from 5-13 Aug 2005 when I changed internet connection companies (note the vandalism post-13 Aug is not mine). I used the IP 200.124.35.174 [[6]] during 2005 too (and created the Puerto Toro article). Give me some time and I'll find more. I don't know how to answer your second question. I just didn't. Ricardo Lagos 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if that wasn't enough, "your IP" 200.119.238.115 was a vandal too. Moe ε 22:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.