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

LuK3[edit]

Final (29/25/8); ended 19:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate (non-crat closure). — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

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[edit]

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]
I think it is time for me to withdrawal my RfA. I appreciate all of the advice given to me down below and will work on the issues pointed out. I would like to thank Dennis and Reaper for writing my nomination and co-nomination, respectively. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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.
Additional questions from Gwickwire
9. You say above that you are going to try to stay away from two things, AN/I discussions and AfD closures. Why do you say that you would want to avoid these two areas of admin work, when they are, as I've seen, sometimes ridiculously backlogged (take a look at AN/I on a normal day)?
A: Throughout my time on Wikipedia, I have been mostly doing maintenance work and did not venture into AfD simply because I do not have enough experience in those areas. As for ANI, I simply do not have a desire to. For AfDs, you cannot close a discussion without determining consensus, if there is any. Understanding policies and guidelines is one of the main pillars for administrators. As an administrator, I would not be afraid to seek input from other administrators regarding a particular deletion discussion. I would rather educate myself before I acting in a potentially daft way.
10. You also say more than once "if another admin would think I was involved". Are you suggesting that you would defer judgement to someone else on involvement, or would you recuse any item where you may be involved? I'd also like a definition in your own words of what involvement is, for example "having made x major contributions to an article" or "having previously been in a dispute with editor", etc.
A: Involvement is previous interactions with editors, whether good or bad, that could potentially present a conflict of interest in a dispute or discussion. If other editors believe I am involved, even if I don't think the same way, I would seek other administrators to review that particular case. It's not about being right in my own mind, but rather community consensus. So yes, I would recuse myself if I was involved, according to that administrator's decision. I cannot use administrative actions on editors that I had previous disputes with, for example.
11. If promoted, would you be open to recall, and if so, what would your conditions be?
A: As an administrator, I would be open to recall if enough of the community believes I cannot uphold the administrative tools and responsibility that I gained during my first RfA. In order to start the recall process, at least 6 editors with over 1,000 main space edits and three months of active editing must start a petition on my talk page. After a week, if at least 6 editors sign the petition, I would voluntarily resign my admin flag over at WP:BNB. In the future, if I feel the time is right, I will submit a RfA again.
Additional question from TParis
12. My major concern is deletion. In question 8, you failed to recognize the misuse of a particular tag and a few other concerns of Salvio's. On the talk page, Dennis Brown reminded me that he had similar issues with CSD and passed on the condition that he go through mentoring. If I change my !vote, will you commit to mentoring?
A: I understand your concern about deletion. I am 100% open to mentoring. If you take a look at my CSD log, it is nearly spotless, but, everybody, including administrators knows that tagging and reviewing articles are two totally different things. If the community thinks I would be more educated with mentoring, I will respect that choice and go ahead with mentoring. I will follow Dennis' mentoring page, which is a very good and thorough guide. It would require two administrators to "sign off" before deleting a tagged article, which is limited to what I do now, tagging.
13. Can you show an example where you took part in determining community consensus and/or (second part is (doubly) optional if first part can be done) can you give a detailed rationale about how you would close Talk:Douglas_Tait_(stuntman)#RfC_Biography_posting?
A: I'll answer the second part of your question. I would close the RfC by not including the edits. The edits included trivial information about the subject's high school basketball career. WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply to the edits because the information has two reliable, secondary sources (Los Angeles Times) accompanied with it. In addition, there is no defamatory language associated with the edits. WP:NPF, however, does apply because even though the subject of the article is notable enough to warrant an article, the information about his basketball career does relate the the subject's notability. Editors are encouraged to use common sense in editing. In this case, this information added did not go against policies of guidelines, but common sense should be used to see if the edits add to the subject's notability, which it doesn't.
14. Without explaining what consensus is, can you explain how you determine it? How do you weigh arguments to determine consensus? I really want to support you, but I feel like your answers have been very bookish. Please go out on a limb here, be detailed, and explain how your mind would process a situation like above to determine consensus. Impress me, please, so I can support you. Any of us can read the guidelines and policies. Tell me what you think.
A:

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  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]
    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) Moving to oppose, see my rationale there.[reply]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  7. Support – Excellent RfPP, AfD, and CSD work. Absolutely nothing to oppose about. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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]
  9. Support per Go Phightins! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I trust the nominators' judgement. Seems like he would make an excellent admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Everything checks out! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support About time.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. High-quality candidate, and excellent jobs on the nomination statements, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 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]
  18. Support. Have seen him around and his contributions are good. Torreslfchero (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - seems to meet my requirements. --Nouniquenames 18:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Good anti-vandalism work, low drama and a solid contributor. Hand him a mop! - MrX 00:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak support. I'm somewhat concerned by the statement on blocks (Q5), which seems to be somewhat hasty, and by the statement on speedy deletions (Q8), which appears to see too much importance in these examples, especially the second. However, I'm inclined to trust a nomination by Dennis, so I expect that LuK will edit in good faith and won't misuse the tools. Before long, he'll probably learn how better to use the tools, and I doubt he'll make substantial errors before then. We need more admins, and someone working in good faith and willing to learn should be capable. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak support, based on several answers which show a few areas the nominated user needs to work on; but nothing which causes me not to support the user in the end. Kierzek (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Answer to Q5 made me sit and think for a bit, as it reads initially as if you would be over-zealous with the block button. But on re-reading I realize that you are talking in terms of applying blocks to proven vandals, which is generally wholly acceptable. Please be careful with your phraseology in your warnings, assuming this RfA is successful.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Because he is humble, will ask for help, and honestly admits to wanting to avoid AN/I. We could use more admins who are here to do just the non contentious work, with no trigger happy finger, and no apparent desire for power. Further I think a lot of Dennis Brown and his support and nomination are meaningful.(olive (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  26. Support (moved from neutral) There are a number of learning points for the candidate which have arisen from comments here. I've still seen no evidence that the tools are likely to be used in unconstructive ways, and am of the impression that the candidate would proceed with caution if this RfA is successful: therefore offering support. -- Trevj (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good contributions so far, and I'm satisfied with his answers. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, excellent editor Cavarrone (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak support: A great editor, but there are some legitimate concerns. Needs a bit more time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  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]
    I agree with Townlake. People reading and commenting on this page are usually competent enough to make up their own opinion - there's no need to conceal anything. The responses to Salvio should be moved back to the main page of this request. The reactions should be kept in one place as they provide context, continuity and represent logical development of the discussion. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:45, 2 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]
    While I enjoyed your backpedaling (the softened criticism is still inaccurate), I'm not going to waste my time dredging up links to prove your original statement was erroneous. Other users are welcome to go through the same exercise I did and reach their own conclusions. Townlake (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, here you go, [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. All within the last 500 contributions. It might not be GA or FA work, but it is content work. Legoktm (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, we all make mistakes now and then, but did anyone else notice that the very editor complaining about the lack of content contribution had SineBot sign his oppose? SineBot! (shutters) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:56, 4 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.[5] 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]
    I cannot support a candidate who signs his posts with something other than his username. Perhaps "LuK3" was a "cool" way of spelling "Luke" in the candidate's mind when he joined Wikipedia; perhaps he even regrets it now; but admins should be expected to sign with their real account names. Should the candidate change his signature or change his username, I will review further. Keepscases (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I have not really thought about my signature, as User:Luke has not edited since 2001, but I do see your point. To prevent further confusion, I have changed my signature to my registered username. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose withdrawn. I will look at things further. Keepscases (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is to me not a serious issue. There are many examples of admins who use substitute usernames in their signature. Apteva (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think that sucks. No way to stop regular users from doing that, but I certainly will never support any admin candidate who wants to do that. (I was thinking of "signing" this comment with someone else's name, but that seems POINTy.) Keepscases (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to see the change of sig. Admins can be expected to frequently deal with newcomers, and Wikipedia already has what can be considered a steep learning curve, without further complicating matters by sig obfuscation. -- Trevj (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also impressed with the candidates decisive action, recognizing the better practice, and implementing a corrective action. It is a strong indication of the Nominees willingness to learn, and prompt manner of adopting the better way. I'm confident that he will be ready to succeed at his next wp:rfa, if he chooses to. And less concerned if he passes this one. The irony however, is that it confirms my impression, that there are simply too many best practices yet to learn. I just hope LuK3 takes it all for his betterment and personal growth. For sure, the candidate deserves a fair, and constructive critique. I hope LuK3 sees mine this way, though I am aware of how easily, and often, the comments feel wrong. Wp:rfa is definitely, a "suck-ass" process (pardon my southern handicap); and that is a sad reality, of what some would call a "horrible and broken process"; which I know a little about. I do wish the candidate well, and he is welcome to contact me, anytime, if I could help. So I'll stfu now. My76Strat (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Block happy, prot happy. Answers to questions are extremely poor. Lack of content contributions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm sorry to have to say this but I have to weak oppose. This candidate specifically states that he doesn't want to participate in AN/I, and will avoid it if possible, which just doesn't meet my personal taste. I think an administrator should be willing, if not eager, to help wherever is needed. This means monitoring everything, including helping in AN/I. Also, he states he only wants to do "snow keeps and closes according to consensus" on AfDs, which in my opinion, snow keeps can be left to non-admins very well, and the easy consensus ones too, whereas he doesn't seem ready to make hard decisions that are needed of an administrator. His replies in terms of involvment also cause some concern from me. I have no doubt that if he is obviously involved he would recuse himself, but he states "If another administrator would think I was involved" which leads me to believe he isn't able to make the decision himself, which I feel is needed in an administrator. Pending any answer to the question I ask above, I have to oppose. gwickwiretalkedits 02:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We are volunteers and we don't help where help is most needed: we help in areas where we think we are most competent and where we have the most fun because we all have day jobs and Wikipedia is not our day job. You recently edited Operation Pillar of Defense and got involved in its talk page discussion. I think that's great: this article deserves attention. But the articles on Egon Schiele and Stig Dagerman should be expanded and the sourcing should be improved. Why aren't you working on these instead? Many admins stay clear of ANI and do a fine job nonetheless. Some admins have never blocked an editor, some have never deleted an article. You can still be grateful for the administrative work that they do. Pichpich (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you come from. However, I must politely disagree. We, as a community, promote administrators to do backroom tasks. If he were to say that he would avoid doing certain tasks, I don't feel I can support. I am, however, leaning a little bit neutral, as per some satisfaction in parts of his answers to my questions. If he is going to stay away from some tasks, I can't support. I also have a doubt that he will be able to make very important decisions himself, such as those in closing AfD discussions, or being involved. An administrator needs to be able to determine himself whether or not he is involved, in case nobody else is around to do so. If this passes, I won't be mad, as I think he still has good qualities. I just cannot throw my support to this candidate at this time. gwickwiretalkedits 16:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put it another way. Do you think that current administrators should resign if they don't achieve your desired quota of activity at ANI? We don't promote administrators to become slaves to admin tasks. Pichpich (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I follow the reason in both responses. I'm surprised that the tone in the comments imply that one editor has to be wrong for the other to be right. It's pretty clear to me that both of you are right, and entitled to hold opposing views and different values. I could say I agree more with one view than the other, but the truth for me is that I'm somewhere in the middle of you both. Which makes neither of you wrong.

    So let's hear all the views that get expressed, and comment if we must. Remembering that it is unreasonable, and entirely too much stress, to offer an opinion with an expectation that the other person should agree with you, in the end. It's best to chill out a bit, and give everyone a fair hearing, since they were kind enough to join the process in good faith. And avoid the extra stress that goes with folly. Best regards, My76Strat (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  8. Oppose. An admin candidate who wants to stay the hell away from WP:PITCHFORKS? We could use more of those around here. However, I find the candidate's answers to many of the questions to be two-dimensional. His answers suggest that he can parrot policy fairly well, but I'm not seeing much in the way of critical thinking. I am in agreement with gwickwire above in the way that I don't feel that this candidate can be counted on to make decisions for himself. Q7 in particular is exceptionally poor. I don't think that he is intentionally trying to be condescending, but that is exactly how the answer comes off... and this is not a good quality for an admin. Trusilver 08:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - The statements concerning AfD from someone who intends to be involved in assessing CSDs would indicate to me that this is someone who is simply not ready to be assessing CSDs. - jc37 09:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Much as ANI needs an expert on zombies, this writer of the article zombies needs time to review policies and to try some informal mediation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC) 12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Q8 by Salvio. Article #1 is not a: real person, company, animal, organization, or web content. So CSD A7 doesn't apply at all.--v/r - TP 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, cannot support. Ggg1829 (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked as a sockpuppet. Tiptoety talk 18:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Poor question answers, as well as the concerns regarding CSD (Q8, mainly). Buggie111 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. A great editor, but I am concerned by the answer to Question 9. It would be preferable if the candidate gains a bit more experience in consensus-finding, particularly by participating in more deletion discussions. Given a few months of more experience, I would think Luk3 will be ready for adminship, but I don't thin he's quite there yet. dci | TALK 18:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per above. I am also, however, now concerned with this user's lack of content contributions. 19:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)TBrandley
  15. Oppose per answer to Q9. AFD and AN/I are important areas of admin activity that all potential admins should be able and willing to participate in. INeverCry 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? If they wish to work in other areas and don't wish to be involved in ANI or AFD is that such an issue? Do you think a prospective admin should necessarily have experience at ANI? Does this apply to all other admin areas? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    These are major, and quite busy, areas, where I think all admins should participate in some capacity. I don't think an admin has to be there constantly or do a certain quota, but to be unwilling or unable to contribute in these important areas is an issue to me. INeverCry 03:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that ANI and AFD are very important areas, but it is not as if EN:W has only three or four admins and needs all of them to do ANI and AFD. From a practical standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong with appointing an admin who says they are only going to do deletion requests, or even only undeletion requests, for that matter. With 800 active admins, there really is no reason for any one admin to close an ANI or an AFD, ever, if that is what they choose - and knowing that up front is particularly helpful, actually, in my opinion. So yes, highly unusual, no not an issue. Apteva (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked the question because in the RfA for Harrias you supported despite the editor never having edited at WP:ANI, WP:AN or WP:AN3 as noted by Stradivarius. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the impression with Harrias that he's willing and able to help, but that his extensive content work will naturally take up alot of his time. I just don't see this willingness, and, to some extent, ability, on LuK3's part, especially considering his direct statements of wanting to stay away from AN/I and his intentions of only closing certain AFDs. INeverCry 22:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The candidate's answers to RFA questions such as #7 and #8 show that he needs a bit more experience before he's ready for the sysop gig. Weak answers coupled with minimal content-building experience result in my oppose. That said, I think he's doing some good work and could make a fine admin one of these days. Majoreditor (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per answer to question nine. Till 06:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with Q9? Can't he choose where he wants to work? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I hate to do this because I have seen LuK3's name around and he's definitely a productive contributor, probably someone who would make a pretty good administrator with time and experience. That said, I have to agree with Salvio giuliano's sentiments above; telling two established contributors who have otherwise been very polite and friendly to "AGF" as if they were a couple of immature, inexperienced editors with axes to grind would come across as patronizing. It may also be an ineffective approach to diffusing the situation. My advice to LuK3? If this fails, don't be too disheartened. Let this RfA act as a learning experience (actually, even if it is successful, there's plenty of growth that can be achieved from this point), come back within five or six months, and I can almost guarantee my support at a future date. Kurtis (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose due to poor question answers. Canuck89 (converse with me) 09:55, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Concerns to his answers to questions regarding AFD and CSD. Not ready at this time. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 16:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Hate to do this, but after looking at a few of your contributes in areas you wish to work and the ways in which you answered the questions, you are not ready for the tools yet. This is going to be a wall-o-text. From your CSD log, you make good judgements, yet the question to the example CSDs above is sorta like a 'trained' answer and lacks perspective from the aspect of a reviewer. For someone with such experience you do not seem able to understand the flip side of the coin. For vandalism patrol, I pulled a very recent one, from December 3 which shows 5 edits (and more from other patrollers) yet you did not take the simple action of requesting semi page protection. [6] If I have to revert the same garbage 5x within 2 hours or even a day, I'm requesting a semi. As for content contributions, they are lacking. 33 edits are in a row on the Yankees-Red sox rivalry. It looks like you spent 3 active days total on it. And while the article is a GA, it doesn't seem to be your 'baby' as the GA started back in late June and your edits came from July on. April 2012 Afghanistan attacks is good, but since April, almost nothing has been added, and your interest was only 4 days long. The work itself is not bad, its just that you do not seem to retain an interest and bring an article to GA or FA. Even though you have been here since 2008, the only measure of your ability is from the last six months where you have been active. So its not like a tenure matter, I just don't see the level of experience or a great justification for the tools. Lastly, the responses to the other answers sealed it for me, "My best contributions are my vandalism reverts and reports." One does not need to be an admin to do this, as of this day you show you did not take reasonable action even after reverting the same garbage 5x. Question 3's "I have not been in any conflicts that gave me stress", is a stand out. We haven't seen a conflict in which you had to show restraint, leadership and civility. I want admins to at least be active in discussions, heated and otherwise. These people skills are increasingly more required, and you have not yet demonstrated experience in discussions, concensus and the more troublesome aspects of Wikipedia which you will surely encounter as an active admin. A vanilla response to #4 is probably a sign that you haven't developed your own foundations for 'deletionist' and 'inclusionist' ideologies as both of those projects are important to their own groups for a great many reasons, just saying they are valuable and what they do shows a minimal understanding of their histories and aims. Question 5 was fine until I read, "blocking will a main pillar in my administrative work, so I would be using it frequently." and when asked to clarify you don't banish the thought that blocking people isn't your primary work, but that you won't be trigger happy about it. A poor choice of words or a judgement matter, either way, I cannot agree on that either. Question six is wrong. If you are involved in something, blocking someone who is making a personal attack on your page in response is very poor judgement. Like it or not, you should let someone else deal with that, as you are involved and it is a personal matter. Its just too much to work on and its littered with signs of inexperience and judgement issues. I am not willing to let there be this much 'on the job' training of an admin, one or two issues is fine, but on the whole, you are not ready to be an admin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Oppose Per TParis above. The candidate simply does not seem to have the experience to be an admin (At This Time), his answers, particularly to Q8 were rather telling. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per previously stated problems with answer to Q8. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Lack of experience at AN/ANI/AFD which I would expect in any hopeful admin, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per problems above regarding Q8. Mediran talk to me! 12:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
(moved to support) 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]
  1. Neutral I agree with Trevj. I need to look into this further before I vote for or against the user. The opposes raise some concerns. Vacationnine 20:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Per Ceoil, and Trevj. I feel more experience is needed for this candidate, but I want to do a wait and see approach here. I disagree that the answer for "Salvio" question is completely wrong. I would have speedied example number two as G11, and example one should have been declined because it's not a company/person/band/organization that A7 supposed to be use for and that was clearly a proper misuse of the tag, but he played the safe approach to these questions, which is fine. If he said he would have speedied example one as A7, then there is cause for concern with his question. Secret account 01:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I wanted to support this candidate, not least because I respect both nominators, and in particular, Dennis Brown says that he has done much reviewing of the candidate prior to nominating. However, the lack of quality and clarity in the answers to the questions gives me pause. I think it's probably "stage fright", but then, as an admin the spotlight is likely to be upon him more often than it is now, and he will often be placed in situations where he needs to assess questions like this quickly, and explain his actions clearly. I'm also concerned from his answers that he may tend to lean towards a block as a solution more often than is necessary, but, given that much of his work is in anti-vandalism, where he would have encountered many purely disruptive accounts, this may be a somewhat unfair assessment. I will look at more of his contributions, and may revisit this vote if I find enough evidence to push me off the fence in either direction. Begoon talk 01:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - good intentions, but more experience needed in my opinion to make a good admin. --Claritas § 16:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - for now. Will keep an open mind. Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I see no real concern in contributions, but the most important quality in a candidate is clue, and an ability to think critically. While the contributions look fine, I couldn't quite bring myself to support, based upon some mediocre answers to questions. May move to support, and I certainly won't oppose, but I don't have enough confidence to support. NativeForeigner Talk 08:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral pending answer to TParis questions. Guðsþegn (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. I've been swaying back and forth on this one, but I feel that some of the concerns raised in the oppose section (particularly the answer to Q8) are compelling. I'm sure this great editor will make a fine admin one day, but I can't support at this time. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 11:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, but really an "oppose with moral support" My thinking as I read the responses to the questions was one word: "TENTATIVE"; the responses are bit like a 5 year old at the end of the diving board. I believe that given more time, further experience, and a lot of work in "admin-ish" areas, this editor could be a reasonable admin candidate someday. You have been provided a lot of things to work on, both in terms of article work and policy knowledge. Take the opportunity to reflect positively on this experience, and probably see you back here around the end of 2013. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (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.
Category