Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lucky 6.9 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickK (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 21 October 2004 (→[[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lucky 6.9

Vote here (19/5/2) ending 18:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Works tirelessly against vandalism and junk. This doesn't show in his contributions list, as a lot of the stuff he deals with gets deleted... Evercat 18:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. As above. Evercat 18:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. — Kate Turner | Talk 18:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
  3. zoney ♣ talk 19:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes, a thousand times yes. (feel free to count that as 1001 distinct votes.) [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 20:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. ffirehorse 21:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Strongly support. Reasons should be obvious. --Lst27 22:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Good longtime editor. My concerns have been addressed. This is long overdue, really. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Mhmm. ugen64 02:25, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Lucky is a good, trustworthy contibutor. I support. →Raul654 02:30, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  10. I'll echo Rhymeless' vote.  ;-) Definite support. SWAdair | Talk 03:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. Supported last time, still support this time! —Stormie 03:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Gzornenplatz should learn that merits should be taken into account and not politics based on whether or not you think we should all have peace and love and accept the ugliest of substubs. Mike H 03:38, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  13. ABSOLUTELY. That is all. Ambi 04:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Excellent junk remover, and substubs can always be re-created. Alphax (talk) 05:13, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Absolutely: Lucky works harder than about anyone here, and he has shown consistent dedication. He has demonstrated a concern for the quality and health of the project. Geogre 13:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. Strongly support. He's one of the most dedicated patrollers you'll find around here (even if the stress does get to him sometimes). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:58, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
  17. No problem supporting, much better candidate than most other users we get on here and RC Patrol can be a very wikistress-raising place. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. Lucky, on balance, is a real asset to the Wikipedia community. I have faith in his putting on his best face to new Wikipedians, and he has been a pleasure to work with in creating new articles. I believe Lucky has shown greater maturity over time, not less. He has stuck around and not left for good. Lucky can be trusted with the keys to the "janitor's closet." He has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. --avnative 18:45, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

#Go Go! User:Peter 21:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) (vote by anonymous user User talk:80.120.190.34. — David Remahl 19:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  1. RickK 20:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Always high-strung and gets burned out far too easily. Same person who, about a month ago, requested his user pages be deleted because he was leaving – and then returned a week later. I think we need admins who are more stable and reliable. Maybe next time. -- Netoholic @ 19:09, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
  2. I'm still concerned about edits like this. He has to learn to leave valid stubs alone. Gzornenplatz 21:02, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    I would agree, however he doesn't need sysop powers to do that sort of thing, so it's not a huge problem... Evercat 15:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reluctantly oppose. Lucky has made major contributions to the Wikipedia, both content-wise and as a member of the RC patrol. I respect him for this. The vast majority of his interactions with other users have been extremely constructive and positive, with Lucky using tact and patience to get his point across. And his points are generally good ones; Lucky always has the best interests of the Wikipedia at heart.

    However, as an RC patroller, I have seen the occasional angry, abusive message left on anonymous users' talk pages. For example: [1] and [2]. There are others. I don't care how bad a vandal these users are — there is never any excuse for such abusive personal attacks. I understand that Lucky may get frustrated at vandals from time to time. (Who doesn't?) Getting frustrated is one thing. Exploding over it is quite another.

    One of my personal standards for administrators is that candidates must never violate the civility policy. Admins must represent the most hard-working, trustworthy, and friendly face of Wikipedia. Lucky fits the profile well except for these periodic outbursts of anger. Incivility is not to be tolerated under any circumstances — and certainly not from our admins. Therefore, I cannot in good faith support Lucky for adminship. Sorry. • Benc  • 05:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  4. He should have been an admin long ago. I have changed my vote to oppose. Recent edits that contain extreme personal attacks such as "Yo, fucktard.[...]Get a life, buttbleed" that were brought to my attention above have tainted my otherwise high opinion of Lucky. Being high-strung is ok, but insulting users, even worthless vandals, is unacceptable, especially by admins (or prospective admins). I cannot support Lucky, as much as I feel he is an otherwise good user. Andre (talk) 17:53, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  5. After reading posts on IP address user talk pages (where it is unlikely the vandal will even see it) that contain profanity and uncivilized conduct, I have to seriously consider the user's value as a contributor. Blatantly breaking Wikipolicy once can negate 5-10 strong contributions to the community in my POV. Since the posts in question were as recent as 2 days ago, by this logic, I find it possible for the user to actually be in the negative numbers. I cannot support this in a user, much less an admin. I; therefore, strongly oppose. Skyler1534 18:44, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. My only concern is that Lucky has been in the past considerably overzealous in tagging things for speedy deletion. I'll only support him if he pledges to strictly abide by Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You have my word and I'm certain that I can count on the guidance of experienced admins. I've seen what can happen out at the VfD page when things are deleted too soon and it sure ain't pretty. - Lucky 6.9 02:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. I don't think I oppose outright, since he does do a lot of useful deletion work, but Lucky seems way to high-strung, and too personally offended by vandals. Recent things such as this do not help, in my mind. And what if he just takes off again? (Not that it would matter technically, but still...) Adam Bishop 02:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That edit is positively un-civil... and was just yesterday. Admins need to show maturity, rather than inflaming situations and using offensive language. Not so sure this is the face we want to show to newcomers, since admins are de facto representatives of Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I echo the speedy deletion concern above. I've noticed quite a few questionable speedy deletion taggings by Lucky. He does tremendous RC patrolling, but double-checking of {{delete}}s by an(other) admin is still needed. — David Remahl 03:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your concern. Again, I give you my word that I will abide by the rules. Though a lot of my contribs as of late have been mostly janitorial, I hope you'll take my contribs to the content of this site as extremely valuable. I'd be grateful for the opportunity to personally head off real vandalism and real destruction and to be more than merely a whistle-blower. I've never knowingly harmed Wikipedia and if my passion tends to overflow, it's because of my inability at present to directly address real problems and real issues. - Lucky 6.9 04:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can't support or oppose outright, but I am a bit concerned. With the candidate's admitted "temper tantrums" and the numerous protestations to the comments made here so far, not to sound cynical, but I am waiting for it to get ugly. Plus, no matter how the situation was resolved, if the user had an argument with another user that got ugly (even if they are friends now), I don't think I can support this. Newcomers should look to admins with respect and they don't always see the resolution, they sometimes just see the conflict. I'm not confident enough to support, but I'll review the contrib history before voting to oppose. Skyler1534 12:46, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Please note that the answers to the "Questions for the candidate" below were given by an IP user 67.52.188.182. If it was Lucky who wrote them, he needs to sign in before we can accept and consider them. -- Netoholic @ 21:06, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
    • It was me. I've got a glitch here on my computer at work that sometimes logs me out without my knowledge. In fact, I got the message from Evercat that I'd been nominated right after logging on, came right over to answer the questions...and inadvertently did so as an anon. Thank you for pointing that out. - Lucky 6.9 21:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • In regards to Gzornenplatz's legitimate concern, may I point out that I was acting in what I thought was the best interest of the site. Evercat took the time to point that same thing out to me earlier which, in roundabout fashion, lead to his renominating me for adminship. Since I was redirecting many of the B-Movie Bandit substubs on the suggestion of an admin, I thought that redirecting "nanostubs" might be a better course of action than simply waiting for them to grow. If my intentions were cause for concern, please accept my apologies and my word that I will no longer do so if that's what the community wishes. - Lucky 6.9 21:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • We need a link to the previous adminship request, and explanation of exactly what changed since. --Joy [shallot] 07:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The last nomination, folks were saying, "Let's see if he sticks around and doesn't get stressed out." Well, we've seen. As for people voting con on the basis of Lucky's stance on substubs, please recall that his view on substubs is not just his. This is an issue that has divided the administrator community. Where one person draws the line, another would move it. However, I think the majority is against substubs that can't be expanded, and I hope most people have gotten past defending the -bot generated sentence fragment articles. Geogre 13:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. We have a vandal bot running rampant on the site and have for months. Those who know me well also know that I took a lead in the attempt to initiate policy change where the so-called B-Movie Bandit was concerned. I'm pleased to say that those "contributions" have for the most part stopped and I can't thank everyone who contributed to the cause nearly enough. I have always had this site's best interest at heart and I either tag these monstrosities for speedy deletion or, if the title is a useful one, make them into redirects. It would be an honor as well as a pleasure to assist in reverting such wanton destruction. Actually, I should clarify that statement to mean that the vandal bot entries can now be deleted on sight. The Bandit has become something of a non-issue and some rather good short articles have grown from the initial entries.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm quite pleased with several since I greatly enjoy writing and do it as a regular part of my day job. I started Ridge Route, Wigwag and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 and brought all three to featured status with the help of the community. I contributed a vast amount of information to Ford Mustang, Felix the Cat and VW Type 2 and all three got featured status nods as well. It's an almost spiritual experience to see an article you've toiled on featured on the main page for the world to see.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. LOL! Well...yes. I admit to having had a temper tantrum or two in the past and left the community only to return later as Netoholic correctly pointed out. In my defense, I'd like to point out that it was the kind words of encouragement from lots of other users that convinced me of the folly of my ways and caused me to have a change of heart each time. There are some truly wonderful folks here. I've made it a point to avoid the more contentious areas of Wikipedia and to concentrate more on contributing to its general content. It's also true that I've had issues with other users but those incidents have been more than resolved. In fact, I'm pleased to say that I've not only made peace with the parties involved, I've gained some tremendous allies and yes, even Internet pen pals as well since coming to an understanding with each party. Though the written word can be quite powerful, communicating in such a way between individuals can lead to misunderstandings. The experience I've gained since first submitting my user name has been a fantastic learning experience and will be a tremendous help in dealing with contentious users in the future. It's sometimes easy to forget that there's a human being on the other side of the modem. I've made friends, gained allies and I am genuinely proud to have contributed in a positive way.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lucky_6.9_2&oldid=6758358"