Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lucky 6.9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lucky 6.9

(30/23/5) 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)
    • Support. Excellent junk remover, and substubs can always be re-created. Alphax (talk) 05:13, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. 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)
18. RickK 20:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
19. Support, appears to be a very dedicated member of the community - Triona 23:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. Postdlf 03:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
21. support for keeping the crap out of wikipedia. --Jiang 20:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
22. Support Our man in the Coachella Valley. -- Decumanus 23:07, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
23. Passw0rd 12:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • User has less than 100 (questionable) edits. Probable sock puppet. -- Netoholic @ 04:40, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
24. YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
25. We're Lucky to have him. Warm, no hot support. Recommend burnout prevention, but this is no impediment to adminship. JFW | T@lk 16:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
26. Vacuum 17:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
27. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 02:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC): Without blinking my eyes. If I had known he was here, I would have voted way before. Lucky is an invaluable member of Wikipedia, and personally, I feel that taking breaks from Wikipedia is far more responsible than losing it and doing something he'll regret. He's a great guy, and definitely has my full support.
28. 172 08:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
29. Sarge Baldy 19:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
30. user:zanimum I wish I personally had nominated him. I can't tell you how many early morning sweeps of Wikipedia he's helped me with, id'ing nonsense and the like. I've personally never come across any of the explosions mentioned below, maybe I'm just not looking.

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)
6. I would love to be able to vote for Lucky. He is an excellent contributor, a tireless workhorse of Wikipedia, doing many thankless tasks. If this was a vote concerning whether or not Lucky deserved thanks and honor for this work, I'd support hands down. Sadly, though, Lucky's temper, especially with newbies, is seemingly incompatible with the role and responsibilities of an admin. I am very open to the possibility that Lucky will find better ways of communicating displeasure, and gentler methods of working with new users -- I opposed Mike H, way back when, out of a concern for the way he handled disputes, and I'm now pleased to say I think he's very good at it and I was happy to support him when he was renominated. I fervently hope that Lucky takes a similar path. Until Lucky consistently respects Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Wikilove, though, I'm afraid I will continue to oppose, and simply thank him sincerely for the many hours of work he does here. Jwrosenzweig 23:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. When I noticed Lucky 6.9's nomination here, I was very excited and couldn't wait to add my name to the list of supporters - I have long admired his tireless work right there on the front line of quality control on the pedia. However, it is with extreme reluctance that I have to agree that the recent highly abusive comments left on anons' talk pages make him an unsuitable candidate at this time. Lucky, I see the undertakings you've given here that you will work to curb this behaviour, and I believe that you will honour those promises. If you don't make sysop this time, I'll be looking forward to supporting your nomination next time, when you'll be able to point out that such behaviour is well and truly in the past. --Rlandmann 02:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose: too quick to tag things for speed delete, volatile in interactions w/ other editors. That said, Lucky has made a lot of worthwhile contributions. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. Seems as if Lucky likes to put speedy tags on articles which may be notable or those which are precedented as VfD material. His over-zealousness alone makes me cautious, but coupled with very recent insults on talk pages - "Yo, fucktard. Take your cute, little, fluffy doggie and stick him where the sun don't shine. Get a life, buttbleed." - just drives the nail in the coffin. CryptoDerk 23:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
10. I hate opposing nominations here. But i agree 100% with Jwrosenzweig. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. I also agree with Jwrosenzweig. I'd like to see more wikiquette, less questionable speedy delete-tags and less temper first. --Conti|✉ 02:16, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose on the basis of the valid objections noted by other users. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:20, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
13. Acegikmo1 16:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC). I recognize that Lucky is an excellent contributor, but I cannot support him considering how recently he has resorted to insulting new users. If this behavior ceased, I would be very willing to change my vote.
14. I too concur with, Jwrosenzweig. Wikiquette and Wikilove are essential, perhaps the most important, qualities of an admin. I would be willing to support if Lucky became more mindfull of his behavior toward other users, no matter how frustrating.-JCarriker 03:56, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
15. Darn. I like the guy, but his temper gets in the way, especially after seeing the abovementioned [3] and [4]. Oppose - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
16. Ejrrjs 12:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Oppose
17. ElBenevolente 16:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Use of profanity-laced insults in user pages, as recent as this month, is uncalled for.
18. Oppose. Lucky69 could not resolve his conflicts and then up and quit a few months ago. From what I remember and read here his posts were very POV, to the point where he wanted to do away with discussion and just speedy delete articles he did not like. I fear he will do as he suggested and delete things without going though the proper process. ShaunMacPherson
19. Oppose. I have not seen any marked change in his behaviour since the last time he was up for adminship. Too much of a loose cannon, bellicose. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon , ]] 01:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. Oppose with regret. Good user with a short temper, as by the comments above. -- Chris 73 Talk 13:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
21. Oppose He or she has a short temper... Dont be mistaken, I have NEVER voted to oppose someone. But sorry.. squash 22:41, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
22. I have changed my vote to Oppose with regret. An admin cannot afford to have a short fuse. Alphax (talk) 06:55, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
23. Oppose, reluctantly, for now. tregoweth 15:43, Oct 27, 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)

3. I don't really care if Lucky has a few choice words to say every now and then, but he has a very liberal idea of what qualifies as a speedy deletion candidate, and that makes me a bit uncomfortable with the idea of him having the power to delete articles. I also wish he wouldn't redirect things like movie stubs to actor articles. Everyking 15:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Ultimately a very good contributor. But recent statements and actions (especially causing drama on missing wikipedians) stops me from supporting. Arminius 02:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. I'd really like to support him for the way he fights the vandals, but because of his broad understanding of speedy deletion material and the abuse highlighted above, I regretably can't support. Cool Hand Luke 18:39, 27 Oct 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)
  • Here is the last version before it was removed on Aug 15th 2004. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 2004 Oct 21 (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)
• Comment to a new user by lucky not yet a week old. --ShaunMacPherson 19:37, 25 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.