Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luckyluke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Luckyluke

Final (2/19/0) ended 05:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Luckyluke (talk • contribs) – A devoted Wikipedian? Luke 07:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept - Luke 07:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, indicates a general desire to help Wikipedia. No "bad" edits. Seems well-versed with Wikipedia procedure. However, some advice for the future: Firstly, edit summaries. Use them every time. Secondly, your RfA will fail, unfortunately. Try again in two or three months. In general, it's extremely hard to pass without at least 1000 edits, sometimes more. That may seem like a tremendous amount, but you can rack that many up surprisingly quickly. While you're working on those edits, be sure to engage yourself in a variety of activities. WP:AfD is a stereotypical one, as is WP:RCP. There's plenty to do, and only doing it will get you the gold-plated mop and diamond bucket. If you have any questions or require any more advice, give me a holler on my talk page. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Those opposing this vote should understand that there was a time when all users had admin powers. Experience matter? No! So why should it suddenly matter now?
    Editcountitis? A person can thoroughly develop articles and improve Wikipedia with a few edits. Are 10,000 edits merely comprising of tagging an article for wikification while doing none of it yourself any better than 369 edits? Edits that may be comprise of extensive improvement to an article? Or in some case the complete writing of a 1,000-word article per edit? Edit counts aren't everything. --- Also, it is the case that some people have jobs, careers and real lifes: their existence doesn't evolve around WP. People should be just as welcome on WP, and allowed to be given Admin status, as those whose life is based around Wikipedia. Therefore I respectfully disagree with the oppose vote and vote to support this nomination, without regret. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 18:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Of course, number of edits is not everything. It is very easy to blow the edit count out of proportion. However, too few edits means the person is just not familiar with the probject. That may mean (unintentional) abuse of adminship powers later on, not an encouraging prospect either for the community or the user itself. Let the user get more exposure to the project first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, I looked at his contributions, not just edit count before voting, and I do think LuckyLuke needs more experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-08 10:24Z

Oppose

  1. Oppose until you have more experience. 369 total edits is not enough, and barely any contributions outside of main article namespace. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 07:49Z
  2. Oppose; less than 500 edits; edit summary usage is poor; not enough project-space edits; not enough info provided in self-description to adequately judge possible misuse of tools. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose You've been here a while, but you need to be more active. I'd like to see at least 1000 edits, preferrably 1500. Use edit summaries at least 75%ish of the time, and be more active in the Project namespace; I like to recognize names of RfA candidates. Also, more info in your self-nom description would be nice. -Greg Asche (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. I would suggest you come again in a couple of months. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Just for your own reference, these are your edits compared to Sceptre's, a user whose RfA is passing right now. Note the difference in layout of namespace edits. Come back in a few months, and I'd be sure to vote for you if it looks right. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, lack of edits. Thanks for the prop JHM, as well 217.33.207.195 08:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Going on the assumption, then, that this is Sceptre, confirmation? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    It is, at school (which is a repeat vandal :()
  7. Oppose, for me less than a thousand edits can make an admin, and this is below my criteria. --Terence Ong Talk 09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose 1500-2000 edits will give you a chance next time. Use edit summaries as much as you can. Use the Community Portal Open Tasks. Make sure you vote on some AfDs and keep reverting vandals. Read the admin's reading list and the pages on consensus. Apply again in a few months.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 14:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as per all of the above, plus an almost non-existent introduction which tells us nothing about you or why you would make a good admin. --TheParanoidOne 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong oppose 369 edits and only a Wikipedian since October? Plus, 8% summary usage for major edits? Read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards and then reconsider why you self-nom'ed. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Oppose. As per above. Edit summary usage is way too low. Also, ~120 edits in the last 4 days and then the next edit is 7 weeks back is just not enough for me. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Come back three months later please. Olorin28 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. User needs more experience. --King of All the Franks 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, per all the above. The nomination reasoning speaks volumes to me. He seems unsure of why he deserves adminship. I don't want an admin that will be that indecisive. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose for now for the above reasons but if the user reapplies in a few months I might reconsider. — JIP | Talk 05:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per the above reasons.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - inexperienced. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose More experience, more edit summaries, and more support votes. The last one is a given, but still, sysops must be held to a better standard. --Jay (Reply) 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 8% for major edits and 29% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 108 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 07:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "All users had admin powers"? When was this, when there were only three people editing Wikipedia? I go back to November of 2001, and this assertion is news to me. And note that the person making this claim has only been here four months under this name. Have you been around before, Chazz88, with a different name? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 7 January 2006 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I anticipate pretty much helping with everything. But if a list is needed, they could include: edit the main page/protected pages, protect & un-protect pages, deleting pages, restoring pages, reverting edits/vandalism, enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings, and blocking & un-blocking users/IP's.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I make it a note of making worthwhile and relevant contributions. There aren't any that particularly stand out but I have created new articles and made some valuable contributions. Of recent, I have sorted out the Sheraton disambiguation page. Recently, I have also greatly improved on Capilano College and Harbour Centre. I am pleased with all of my contributions to Wikipedia. For those intently interested, be sure to check contribution history.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A. No, I haven't been in any editting conflicts in the past and can't really tell you much. I can tell you that I am actively seeking out oppurtunities within Wikipedia to help better it. I have also added my nomination to the January 2006 Arbitration Committee nominee list.

As short as the above is, I feel that I have a made valuable contributions to the community and would be able to make a bigger impact by being an Administrator. If you don't feel, I am a suitable candidate, any feedback is greatly welcomed. - Luke 07:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Luckyluke_eea3.html"