Select Page

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luckyluke 2

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

Luckyluke

Final (24/13/2); Ended Tue, 6 Mar 2007 20:21:05 UTC

Luckyluke (talk · contribs) - I first joined the Wikipedia effort in October of 2004. Since then, I believe I have learned many lessons into how Wikipedia works and how I can always better help improve it. For starters, this is my second time around in the RfA process. I first, arguably naively, underwent a RfA self nomination process in January of 2006, of which the result was (2/19/0) withdrawn by bureaucrat. The details of the previous RfA can be seen here. One of the most cited reasons for the failure of my previous RfA was my lack of experience. At that time, I had an edit count of 369 and was not too involved in community. However, today I have a total edit count 3262 and have contributed to this effort in many more ways including those of AfD, IfD, TfD, WikiProjects, reverting vandalism, and of course improving articles. I have become an experienced and trusted editor in the Wikipedia community and believe that by becoming an Administrator, I will be able to exercise Wikipedia guidelines, policies and others developed through consensus in the continual hope of improving Wikipedia's overall article quality. I am currently involved with WikiProject Vancouver and WikiProject Hong Kong. I also wanted to point out that I have undergone an editor review. Luke! 20:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept
Co-nomination by Deryck C.

It is my utmost pleasure to co-nominate Luke, our leading contributor of WikiProject Hong Kong, in this RFA. I first came acorss Luke in an article about a place of Hong Kong. He is such an energetic contributor that he nearly skimmed through every Hong Kong article tirelessly to give ratings and comments. Luke has always been helpful and well-tempered, and he has both strong technical and conventional knowledge about Wikipedia. Moreover, he has great local knowledge about Hong Kong and Singapore, which can make him a valuable asset of Wikipedia if he becomes sysop.

With his energy and availability, Luke can become a good fighter against vandalism once equipped with the sysop tools; with his knowledge and experience, he can become a great mediator and judge between parties when it comes to debates such as deletion and protection. Therefore, I would like to co-nominate Luke in this RFA. --Deryck C. 06:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As a sysop, I anticipate helping out with those chores relating to AfD, CSD, IfD, reverting article vandalism, and monitoring recent changes for vandalism. I also want to point out that I have closed unambigious AfD discussions before as per WP:DPR. I would also strive to successfully carry out other sysop chores such as page protection, blocks, among others.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: There is no one article that I am specificially pleased with on Wikipedia. I am pleased with all of my contributions to Wikipedia. I have never purposefully intended to vandalize any page of Wikipedia. Among all the Wikipedia articles that I have contributed to, I regularly make edits to those of the Vancouver and Hong Kong realm. I am a participant of the WikiProject Vancouver and WikiProject Hong Kong effort. I revitalized the WikiProject Hong Kong effort when it was, arguably, undergoing a period of low participation.
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: No, I have not been in any edit conflicts. I have been cordial and have always assumed good faith in other Wikipedia editors and their edits. As I hope my edit history will show, I have never been rash to act.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. No evidence that LuckyLuke will explode the Wiki with a few extra buttons. Why the hell not? ♠PMC♠ 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I see no reports to AIV but that can definitely be overlooked, I think you'd make a good admin. Good luck!Tellyaddict 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I believe this user will help Wikipedia with the extra tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, I like the Editor Review, this User looks like they will be a useful addition as an Admin. Smee 21:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Support Appears ready, willing and able. Also impressed by the patience in waiting over a year to try again. Agent 86 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Your're ready and able. You would do a great job as an Admin.The Phoenix Enforcer 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Looks pretty good. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good editor and shows good signs for adminship, but I'd like to see more interaction with other editors. However, the good's outweigh the bad's, so good luck. The Rambling Man 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Support Good user, but I'd like to see some article contributions and more user talk discussions. - Anas Talk? 11:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, I see no reason to anticipate any problems or abuse. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support meets my criteria.-- danntm T C 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. No reason to believe you'd be a problem. Grace Note 07:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Sentai 398 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Beginskaj 15:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, hope you'll succeed this 2nd nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would make a fine admin. VeryPage3 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the user's 7th edit ever from an account created 4 minutes earlier which shows similar editing to blocked user Wrongporch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). —Dgiest c 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, looks like a sock of User:CBDrunkerson, both reverting Ryulong over some template. —Dgiest c 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out three questionable votes here. One that I certainly did not make along with one by another sockpuppet and one by this sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per criteria set out on user my page. I am at a loss to understand the motive for signature faking or sockpuppets on the support side in an AfD that appears to be going just fine. I don't see any reason that should reflect on nominee. Edivorce 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Seems good to me. --Meno25 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - as co-nom. --Deryck C. 06:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I'm with Edivorce; Xoloz's opinion baffles me. WP:AGF extends to assuming a modicum of intelligence on the part of other editors, and with that in mind it seems only reasonable to assume that the sockpuppet support came from someone who wanted to queer the pitch. The image stuff identified by Hipocrite leaves me very unimpressed, and I would suggest Luke rereads WP:FU carefully. Even so, we had, and have, admins who have no better an understanding of image policy. My expectations in this area are low, or maybe just realistic, and Luke meets them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Supportgood candidate, admin them! Smbarnzy 13:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Very good candidate (Admin Material) and very experienced..--Cometstyles 13:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, no real reason not to, although I echo Angus' advice that he reread WP:FU carefully. Neil (not Proto ►) 13:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - why not? Walton Vivat Regina! 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose For someone interested in vandal fighting and XfD debates, you don't show all that much participation there. Administrators also need to be comfortable dealing with other editors and resolving conflict if it arises. Your extremely small number of edits in the user talk space does not fill me with hope. —Dgiest c 23:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Less than half of his minor edits have summaries and 23 edits in project talk space and only 68 in user talk space shows a lack of participation in process and little interaction with other editors, both vital qualities for any admin. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong but until I am there is no way I can support this RfA. NeoFreak 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The minor edits that are lacking in edit summaries (~0.1% of all minor edits) are mostly those prior to my first RfA nomination. One of the cited reasons from my last RfA was that I did not use edit summaries. However, since then I have consistently provided edit summaries. Luke! 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 10:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reason behind your opposition? --Deryck C. 10:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you asked, I'll say that Xoloz (below) expresses concerns regarding the vote fraud (in the support section) more politely than I could have done. Also, while 29 months seems like a long time, Luke was inactive or barely active in 25 of them. — CharlotteWebb 04:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Inexperience in both wiki-space and user talk space suggests that editor not yet sufficient familiar with either wiki-process or wiki-communication. Although not attributable to the candidate, number of questionable supports above also call this RfA into question. Xoloz 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose. Please see my comments here on this RfA's talk page for the reason; they're far too long to write here. --ais523 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly look into my edit history. I appreciate your analysis. :) Your feedback is important to me and I'll be sure to keep that in mind in further becoming a valued editor. Luke! 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Image:Akrit2006.jpg, which this user uploaded 13 February 2007, is an obvious violation of WP:FU, as it is "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Strong Oppose[reply]
    When I first uploaded the image, I licensed it using the tv-screenshot tag which I felt was most appropriate to the image being uploaded. It states that, "...use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." are allowed - in this case, the image was low resolution, encyclopedic in value and used only in the Akrit Jaswal article only. Also allows "...for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" - in this case, the program and its contents were being identified as Akrit Jaswal was on the Oprah Winfrey show and the corresponding article provides commentary on Jaswal. I also felt that this image did not replace any original market role, as I had performed a search for a free alternative before uploading this image. Additionally under the fair use policy, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" are acceptable uses. This was/is my rationale for fair use of this image. Luke! 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As demonstrated, continues to "not get" how fair use works here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I was viewing the policy from the point of view of the image being a television screenshot and not, "an image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." Luke! 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you can be a bit more elaborate on how obvious does this image violate the fair use guidelines and to what extent does Luke "not get" the problem. I quite doubt that the image can only provide information about how Akrit looks like. --Deryck C. 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Answers to the question are almost null. I can't support because you don't particularly like any of the work you've done, and may never have been in a conflict. Conflict mediation and resolution are important for administrators, and we need to know how you will react to disputes, particularly since I don't see a reflection of thorough knowledge of policy. It is possible for some editors to demonstrate administrative abilities in 3000 edits, but I think you need more experience. Dekimasuよ! 08:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. In total, you have less than 100 user talk edits, of which only 3 appear to be giving vandalism warnings. Overall, I would suggest you gain some more experience of reverting vandalism and giving warnings. Addhoc 16:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Addhoc. Michael 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This user doesn't yet have enough experience dealing with problematic issues. I regretfully oppose. DS 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Mostly for the user talk issues raised by Addhoc and the lack of understanding of FU policy highlighted by Hipocrite. WjBscribe 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I can't currently support someone with so little user interaction on talk pages over such a long period of time. --Dweller 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose same concerns as those above Johnbod 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral A good candidate; great contributor to the project and shows a good deal of patience in waiting so long between RfA nominations. The only thing that stops this from being a support vote is the relative absence of vandal warnings on user Talk pages and no contributions to AIV in the last 500 project space edits. (aeropagitica) 09:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per aeropagitica.--Wizardman 18:50, 6 March 2007 (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.