Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LuK3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Diesel-50 (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 1 December 2012 (→‎Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

LuK3

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (21/5/1); Scheduled to end 02:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

I'm honored to be presenting LuK3 for admin consideration. I first noticed him this summer at WP:RfPP, where I was impressed by the professional nature of his reports. Even then I thought he would make a good admin. He asked for a review, and I have done two in 4 months, finding everything in good order. He has helped us gain two GAs, and has almost a year and half of steady contribs totaling almost 18,000 edits. He speaks Spanish and some French. He has proven he can be trusted at RfPP, CSD and AIV by the volume and duration of his work there, and he has done this while avoiding ANI and Arb. I think he is a very likeable guy that has proven he can calmly deal with disgruntled editors and avoid drama while under fire. I am convinced that the admin corp will be a richer place if he is granted the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

Greetings! I would like to offer LuK3 (talk · contribs) for your consideration. I have reviewed his contributions and believe that he would be an excellent help to the admin corps. Firstly, I have never seen him edit disruptively. As a result, he likely isn't very well known simply because he has not been taken to WP:ANI or any of the other drama boards—that's a good thing in my opinion! Furthermore, he isn't afraid to admit a mistake, which is another trait desperately needed in an admin. An editor willing to admit his mistakes is an editor who is unlikely to cause serious trouble as an admin. When he encounters a user who does not understand policy as well, he helps to explain the policies. He also logs his speedy deletion nominations at User:LuK3/CSD log. Upon reviewing that page, I found that he is extremely accurate in his tagging. He has contributed to a couple articles by adding references and cleaning up the prose to help them pass good article nominations. He contributes to Portal:Current events, helping to keep it up to date. However, LuK3 works primarily in countervandalism and counterspam efforts, and a cursory review of his edits will show him constantly reverting defacement of our articles. This has caused him to rack up an impressive 600 edits to RfPP and 200 each to AIV and UAA. As RfPP especially can get backlogged at times, I would enjoy having him around to help us protect pages when vandals won't stop messing around. All of his reports are of a very high caliber, so that, when taken together, indicate that LuK3 will make an excellent administrator on Wikipedia. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you to Dennis and Reaper for these nominations. I accept. -- Luke (Talk) 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: I intent to work in vandalism fighting, such as RfPP, AIV, CSD, and UAA. Those are the places I am most comfortable in, having working in them since last year when I started to become active. I would take on speedy deletions cautiously because a new article must adhere to specific criteria in order to be speedy deleted, or else it should be deleted or kept another way. I have voted on some AfDs, however, if I start working in that area, I would only do snow keeps and closes according to consensus in order to gain experience in other administrator areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: From an article standpoint, I would like to say Yankees–Red Sox rivalry and The Walking Dead (TV series) are my best article contributions. I nominated both as a good article and addressed the concerns of the nominators. Both articles involved finding reliable sources and grammar changes to make them the utmost quality. I also think my additions to the current event portal are my other best contributions, having almost 400 edits. From a gnomish standpoint, my best contributions are my vandalism reverts and reports. I think vandalism fighting is necessary in order to preserve the nature of an online encyclopedia.
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 not been in any conflicts that gave me stress, however I have gotten angry messages from some users about me reverting of their edits or me tagging their article for speedy deletion. Luckily, I have not gotten into the drama over at WP:ANI nor do I intend to if I am an administrator. If I get into a dispute in the future, I will engage the other party with civility, as that is the only way to calmly explain your point. Sometimes, fighting fire with fire is not always the way to solve a conflict. I would always take into account their viewpoint and assume good faith wherever possible to solve the conflict quickly and efficiently.
Additional question from Ottawahitech
4. What is your opinion of the following two wikiprojects:
Do you believe they add value to Wikipedia? Do you believe they detract from Wikipedia? – if so how?
A: I think both WikiProjects add overall value to the project. Deletion sorting adds maintenance value for both administrators and users looking for a specific type of article that is being deleted (geography, finance, etc.). For Article Rescue Squadron, some articles are notable with enough reliable sources, however they might need a facelift. Both deletion sorting and the ARS both add value to Wikipedia in different ways.
Additional questions from Hahc21
5. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.
A: From a blocked user perspective, they would probably think that the block was a personal vendetta or grudge against them. However, I would explain that blocks are only used to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia and its atmosphere. Blocks should never be a punishment. Since I intend to work in vandalism areas, blocking will a main pillar in my administrative work, so I would be using it frequently.
In the response to my question, you stated that "blocking will be a main pillar in my administrative work, so I would be using it frequently." My main concern is that it seems like you'd be willing to block at first sight. This might not be the correct interpretation, and thus, I'd like if you explain a bit further how would you proceed before blocking a user if the case seems to be that way. [For obvious reasons, this does not include the obvious blocks for sock-puppetry and the likes].
I won't be trigger happy at all if I'm an administrator. Before blocking, I would notify the user about the relevant Wikipedia policies. I would always assume good faith with new editors that are having trouble with using Wikipedia. Blocks should only be used for prevention of further disruption to the project.
6. If a a user gets mad at you because of some admin-related action you have made and starts vandalizing your userpage at the point on which they receive a level 4 warning, would you directly block the user? Or will you prefer to protect your page and wait until another unrelated admin makes the final decision?
A: If it straight-forward vandalism and personal attacks, then yes I would block that user, only if another administrator would do the same in that situation. If another administrator would think I was involved, I would recuse myself from any administrative action and immediately report it to WP:ANI.
6.1 Sorry if I'm asking too much. In the response above, you stated that you'd perform the block by yourself if the edits are "straight-forward vandalism and personal attacks", which is very accurate. Although, I'm a bit unsatisfied by the way how you explained the measurement of your involvement. I mean, how would you determine, by yourself, if you were, or not, involved in such situations? Thanks.
A: If the user is continuing the vandalism/personal attacks and another administrator would have done the same thing. Just for safety, I would have gone to WP:AN and let others review my block if it was under the blanket of WP:INVOLVED. If it wasn't that urgent, I would have let another administrator handle it if anyone had and objection of me being involved.
Additional questions from My76Strat
7. Imagine two editors, user:A and user:B, both of whom you have interacted with numerous times, over a significant period of time, always impressed by each one's admirable manner of conduct, knowledge, and technical abilities. You have often observed each user demonstrate, an empathetic compassion for others and found each to always appear sincere in their expressions and motives. One day you notice a discussion where A and B are embroiled in a debate with each other, and both, have at times, expressed disdain for the other, and each has also challenged the others motives, suggesting bad faith, and that the site does not benefit by their presence or contributions. You are under no obligation to intercede, and no one would ever know that you were aware of the discussion, unless you did. What would you do? If posting a comment is involved, please give an example of what you are likely to say?
A: Well, first I would let both users know to assume good faith and say personal attacks will not be tolerated. I would then guide them to WP:DRN where volunteers are waiting to help them with their dispute. I would not say, for example, User:A is correct and User:B has no right to be uncivil. That is a clear conflict of interest and example of being involved.
Additional question from Salvio giuliano
8. Imagine you're already an admin and, while patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, you find the following three articles. Each one of these has only been edited twice — once by the page creator and once by a new page patroller — and none of these duplicates an existing topic; what do you do? First article, second article and third article.
A: For CSD #1, a quick Google Search shows many independent, reliable sources on the subject and {{db-a7}} states " If the notability claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied". For CSD #2, the CSD tag does not apply because there is a claim of importance with a television show and commendations from the Ohio governor. I might tag the article with {{Advert}}. For CSD #3, the tag would be appropriate because another article is located at Mont Gosford. If there was no other article on the French Wikipedia, I would of used the {{Not english}} template.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As co-nominator! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. We need more admins, and it looks like he will not abuse the mop.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support About time. --Webclient101talk 02:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per your anti-vandalism, new page patrol, articles for deletion, welcoming, and username policy work. Editor clearly deserves the tools, being a great editor! Very good work. TBrandley 04:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support trust the judgement of the nominators. Answers seem good and like what I saw when spot checking random contributions. PaleAqua (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Any candidate with answers as thoughtful as those and who already has the Dennis Brown seal of approval is almost an automatic support for me. Go Phightins! 04:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support – Excellent RfPP, AfD, and CSD work. Absolutely nothing to oppose about. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - LuK3 seems like an excellent admin candidate. He is very thorough and we could use more good administrators.--Ðrdak (T) 05:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Go Phightins! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I trust the nominators' judgement. Seems like he would make an excellent admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Everything checks out! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support About time.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support ANI needs Wikipedia's leading expert on zombies. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. High-quality candidate, and excellent jobs on the nomination statements, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Good clarifications. Now, I'm happy to support him. Salvio's oppose did not change my mind; after watching LuK3's CSD log, I may believe that Salvio is the one getting things wrong ;) — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I trust the nominators' judgment, and answers to questions are good. Should do a fine job with the tools. Miniapolis (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Have seen him around and his contributions are good. Torreslfchero (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - seems to meet my requirements. --Nouniquenames 18:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I am sorry to be the first one to oppose, but your answer to my question was pretty much wrong; furthermore, if, as an admin, you were to actually act as you say you would in your reply to My76Strat's question, then you'd probably end up making things worse. To remind established users to assume good faith of each other during a heated discussion is, in my opinion, not the best of ideas — it sounds awfully condescending, even though that may not have been your intention. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a thread of responses to this !vote on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    I don't understand why this was moved, and it seems like a very bad idea for a nominator to take this action. Townlake (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a non-nominator and thus far a non-voter, I didn't have a problem with the move. It's Salvio's oppose, so if he wants to move it back here, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I regret opposing this nomination as well. I do feel that your answer to Q7 is cause for concern. The concern is that you are still learning some of the basic tenets of this site's operation, and appear too likely to offend established users who will intersect with your learning curve. Reminding someone to AGF is a mild form of ABF, for it assumes they did not. Linking the term assumes they don't even know of its existence. And linking it here, in your answer, assumes the users who have come to evaluate your nomination need the link for understanding as well. Normally I would not oppose on these grounds alone, but I was already reluctant based on your level of content creation. I am uncomfortable supporting a user for administrator when it bundles so many user rights that the candidate would be unlikely to obtain if they were requested individually. I do not believe you would be granted autopatrolled if a request was weighed against your contributions. In total, the sum is inadequate for me to believe you are an example of editor that ought to be fast-tracked to administrator, with normal requisites for permissions waived, because of your demonstrated potential. I think you have more demonstrating to do, plenty of time and opportunity ahead of you for demonstrating, and a general need for more experience. My76Strat (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No content contributions in the last 6 months, just reverts of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diesel-50 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed this candidate's last 500 contributions, and this statement simply isn't true. Townlake (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point out the substantial non-housekeeping contributions? Diesel-50 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Salvio and 76Strat. Also, the "Walking Dead" page is cited as representative of the candidate's best content work with a GA nom mentioned, yet I see only 15 edits to the page between 19-23 dec 11, all relatively minor, and nothing since.[1] To clarify, I believe the editor is a great asset to the project and seems to be a very hard worker, I'm thinking that its maybe too soon yet, given the answers and lack of audited content work. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Like Ceoil, I believe Luk3 is a good, hard working editor who is likely an asset to the project but think he/she is not ready yet. In particular, what concerns me is the paucity of examples of sustained interactions with other editors and the relatively small number of edits to article talk pages (219 edits or 1.34% of total edits). Admins should have demonstrated experience in handling contentious issues and I see little of that here. --regentspark (comment) 19:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral until I've had a further look. I've not seen any evidence that the tools would be deliberately misused, but Salvio's oppose has influenced me away from the "probable support" opinion which I held until now. -- Trevj (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/LuK3&oldid=525906943"