Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lucky 6.9.08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lucky 6.9 (33/21/3) Ends 23:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I propose extending the deadline by 3 days to see whether a consensus will develop. - David Cannon 22:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As of right now, we have 57.89% aye, 36.84% nay, and 5.26% neutral. Neutrality 20:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd ask you to justify that proposal. This vote has been active since its inception, yet the balance has remained roughly constant. What reason is there to think that three more days will produce a different result? In Quadell's case, there were new developments to consider. I don't see anything like that, here -- and in fact, several opponents below have cited disturbing recent edits. Absent any new evidence, it remains clear this vote will not pass, and it should therefore be removed according to its original deadline. Cribcage 14:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Effective editor, lots of great edits, works hard to maintain Wikipedia integrity. RickK
3,989 edits since March 15, 2004. Mike H 23:23, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
This candidate has accepted the nomination.

Support

  1. RickK 23:05, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. I feel that in Lucky 6.9, we have an editor who will most definitely do much to make Wikipedia a place to be proud of, even more so than it is now. Mike H 23:06, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —Kate | Talk 23:08, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  4. Lucky does a lot of work with sub-stubs. I think the ability to delete them would be extremely handy for him. →Raul654 23:12, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  5. —No-One Jones 23:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. I couldn't be happier to see this listing and to see that Lucky has reconsidered his decision to leave Wikipedia. Definite support. —Stormie 23:19, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Seconding all that has been said previously. I'd have nominated him myself, but Rick beat me to it. Ambi 23:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian✍Talk 23:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Bishonen 23:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) Support, very much, and welcome back, Lucky.
  10. David Gerard 23:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC). (Is he back, then? Welcome back, Lucky!)
  12. I don't entirely know how the admin's diet of death threats, slanderous "cabal" bleating, and miscellaneous underinformed moaning from the project's gin-soaked mailing-list geriatics is going to improve Lucky's satisfaction-quotient, but my concern for Lucky's happinesswellbeing isn't a material reason for Lucky to not be an admin. Lucky is an even tempered, productive, forebearant, and dilligent wikipedian, in whose calloused hands the keys to the wikipedia mop&bucket cupboard can safely be placed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Just STAY AROUND long enough to use these powers!!! blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Rhymeless 01:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) A user I greatly respect; absolutely support.
  15. Strong support. I'm glad you couldn't stay away, Lucky. SWAdair | Talk 02:08, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. I cannot express the strength of my support enough. In the "B-movie bandit" episode, Lucky was tireless at cleaning up the mess left in his wake. If you look at Lucky's contributions, you will not find them in meta or in tables and borders. Those things are important, but Lucky's contributions are in the articles, giving Wikipedia content, endlessly rescuing orphaned items from the Clean Up list, thinking carefully about how he can improve our site. I have never seen Lucky fail in his principles, his energy, or his desire to make us a better project. Geogre 03:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. I was gonna nominate him if he came back, but Raul beat me to it. I support full-heartedly. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. Tεxτurε 04:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. Lucky has proven himself to be a responsible user, if somewhat, uh, rash. However, I believe in demystifying the position of sysop, and I think Lucky can handle this position well enough. Johnleemk | Talk 10:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  20. Andris 11:05, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  21. I have every confidence thwt Lucky 6.9, as demonstrated on his numerous VfD contributions, will not abuse admin powers. -- orthogonal 14:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  22. Huh??? I thought Lucky 6.9 was already an administrator. Strongly support. --Lst27 23:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  23. He has helped me multiple times. Strong support. Neutrality 02:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. Always been impressed with the gruntwork he does. Lyellin 11:28, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  25. I trust Lucky's judgment, let's give him reasons to stay. Burnout can be prevented by community support rather than denying him the sysops right clearly due to him. JFW | T@lk 16:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  26. Jiang 05:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  27. Infrogmation 15:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  28. Ralph is a good guy, and will make a good editor. Samboy 18:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  29. Snowspinner 19:25, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  30. ugen64 01:55, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  31. I was going to abstain. I know Lucky can be a little hot headed. I know I can be. For some poeple, extra responsibility/power leads to the dark side. For others, it has a sobering effect: the knowledge that it can be taken away, the shame that can bring. I think Lucky is one who will be sobered by the trust we place in him. - UtherSRG 02:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Oh, and my sock says hi!)
  32. David Cannon 15:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) Give him the benefit of the doubt. If he misuses his administrative privileges (and I DON'T believe he will), we've always got Stewards who can clip his wings later. As I said, I don't believe that will be necessary. The only way to make sure, however, is to take a step of faith and trust the guy. Just because he's lost his temper once or twice is not, in my judgement, sufficient reason for denying him something that is supposed to be "no big deal."
  33. --Starx 16:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. His work is good, but we need a commitment to stay with Wikipedia, and not to quit every time the going gets tough. Danny 23:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Isn't that better than choosing the wrong side and losing one's head? --Merovingian✍Talk 23:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • No. Participation is better than abandonment, and I'd rather see an editor make mistakes than throw temper tantrums and storm off. Cribcage 01:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Oi, don't let's be nasty. Mike H 01:19, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
          • I wasn't trying to specifically accuse Lucky of throwing "temper tantrums"; I was trying to answer Merovingian's theoretical question. Having said that, I'll readily admit that I have little tolerance for people who loudly pronounce their departure from internet forums -- particularly since such people rarely follow through on their ultimatums. [Put another way, and directed at no one in particular: If you're going to leave, shut up and leave. If not, just shut up.] Cribcage 01:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Good editor, but I don't like statements like this on the Childlove VfD page: "Let's get off the POV/NPOV bandwagon and just speedy delete this. No redirect, no nothing except for maybe reporting this pervert to the proper authorities. If this stays, I go for good and I hope that others will consider doing likewise as well." He needs to be less hot-headed and stay on the NPOV bandwagon, especially as a sysop, when he has the power to actually speedy-delete pages he finds offensive. Gzornenplatz 00:29, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  3. VV 00:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree with the last comment; I am quite surprised to read that. Lucky, are you going to speedy delete articles you find offensive?
  4. With all due respect to Finlay McWalter's vote, I think it's ridiculous to describe this user as "even-tempered." Cribcage 00:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. It's nice to see that he keeps coming back, and I have no complaints to make about his work. However, he's just barely returned from his latest departure, and under such circumstances I can't endorse him for admin right away when he keeps leaving out of frustration. Needs more time, not to learn the ropes in this case, but to show he can hang on to them. --Michael Snow 01:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Having never dealt with Lucky personally, I can only attest to my superficial impression of him as a loose cannon. I'm apparently not alone in my concern over granting this person deletion powers. Austin Hair 02:57, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Given past experience with user on VFD, and noting the nominator, I fear that he may may also consider niceties like {{subst:test}} and other warnings as "too mealy-mouthed". - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. I'm afraid I must oppose. Lucky is a great contributor, but is not suited for adminship--I've warned him multiple times about zealotry in using the speedy deletion template, as have other users. Some users are simply more valuable contributors without adminship. No mark against him personally, but strong opposition. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:03, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  9. Good user, but not ready yet, IMHO -- perhaps in another couple of months. BCorr|Брайен 15:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Opposed, for reasons 1, 2, and 9 above. -Seth Mahoney 18:17, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Acegikmo1 13:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC). I really like Lucky and I think he has done some excellent work on VfD. However, he seems too prone to burnout, and I don't think that granting administrator status would help. I would be very willing to support a future nomination if Lucky spends several months without leaving the project or threatening to.
  12. Lucky is a great guy, but he seems to take disagreements personally too often. I'm willing to reconsider sometime in the future. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for reasons 1 and 2 above. --Conti|✉ 15:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Lucky appears to be a student of Rick's bull in a china shop approach to adminship. I'd rather not WP went further down this road. Pcb21| Pete 10:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Way too eager to delete things and not discuss things out. --ShaunMacPherson 19:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. After an outburst like: "Unilateral censorship?!? Fuck this whole thing once and for all. Keep your precious article. Damn you. Sysops, please delete my pages just as soon as I'm through blanking them. - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)" (retrieved from Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Childlove_movement), inviting this editor to admin amounts to nothing more than appeasement. --Zanthalon 19:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. Regretfully, I think Lucky is a little too hasty at times, and would decide by emotion rather than judgement. Noisy 20:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. I'm not too concerned with oppose #1, per se; the stated reasons may be questionable, but the net effect is similar to counting to ten to cool down before you continue a conversation, which can be a good thing. A minor related issue is it seemed to me like at least one departure was somewhat overly dramatic; I'm more concerned about his willingness to try to sway VfD voting by threatening to leave, but that isn't enuf to get me to oppose, since it's not related to admin duties. I'm a bit more concerned about #2, and while in his answers he indicates a desire to abide by the group's consenus, I have concerns about whether he would be able to do so in one of his more, um, Wikistressed moments. I don't disagree with #12, but in the long run/big picture, I think that will have more negative effects on Lucky's joy of life/state of bliss/whatever, than on Wikipedia. But my biggest concern, and the reason I've been hoping this vote wouldn't happen, is #8, as I am one of the "other users" that expressed similar concerns on Lucky's talk page. Thus I again have concerns about good intentions losing out to exasperation. For example, I don't believe this[1] is a speedy candidate--it says what (who) the article is about, what they are notable for, and where they are noted for it--and I have to assume that Mattingly23 must have come to a similar conclusion. More recently, when, to my knowledge he wasn't in Wikistress mode, he speedy tagged this eight sentence article[2] (which I thot more of a VfD candidate, and later Guanaco found it to be a copyvio, but I think that speaks to its coherence). I should point out that, like Meelar, I think Lucky is a very admirable and valuable contributor, and I'll add that since I became an admin and started hanging around the speedy cat, I think I see more {delete} tags from him than anyone, except maybe Grunt (but I also know that timezones heavily affect who sees whose activity), and the strong majority are clearly deletable, so whatever the outcome of the vote, I hope he continues to find them however he does it. (FWIW, this is the first time I've felt strongly enuf about a nomination to cast a vote.) Niteowlneils 03:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. I usually don't oppose nominations, but I am seriously concerned abouth Lucky's lack of regard for both Wikiquette and Wikilove. These are qualities that are essential to be a leader/sysop in a tolerant community. Perhaps, if he changes his behavior I can support in the future. -JCarriker 03:18, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Oppose as per above comments. Dmn / Դմն 23:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  21. Changing vote from neutral; this user's new "b-movie bandit" template is just too much for me. Everyking 12:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. My only concern is that Lucky keeps leaving Wikipedia. I'd like to see that he's not going to let himself get overly stressed out again. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Seems to have done a lot of good work - but sometimes appears to lack objectivity, and has shown occasional poor tolerance for opposing viewpoints. I'd like to see greater consistency before supporting.--Gene_poole 00:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Guanaco 04:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lucky has done a lot of good work, and I would support a future nomination if he stays with the project, cuts down on the speedy delete tags for non-candidates, and shows a bit more Wikilove.

Comments

  • Oppose. Lucky is one of Mike Church's many sock puppets. When one of them gets promoted to adminship, he will wreak havoc on us all! Metric Dollar 19:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    This is an obvious sock puppet account, so I've moved it from oppose. Guanaco 19:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've never had a moment's contact with "Mike Church" in my life. Talk about a sockpuppet...the account was created today! Metric Dollar, if you're legit, more power to you. I hate sockpuppets as well. By the same token, kindly verify your facts before placing an accusation. - Lucky 6.9 19:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


  1. This user wants to become an admin in order to delete poorly written stubs, isn't that right? I tend to object to that on principle, but maybe there's more to it? Everyking 00:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    I would think that labeling that one reason as wanting to be an admin is selective viewing and really oversimplifying the issue. Mike H 00:06, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to comment as well. For the last several hours, this site has been bombarded with unformatted substubs about "Twilight Zone" episodes, specifically those from the mid-80s revival. The user, naturally, is ignoring all attempts at contact. This is the kind of nonsense that I would revert on sight, not the articles I disagree with. I ask those who oppose my nomination to reconsider. - Lucky 6.9 06:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • So you'd delete them because they're unformatted and short? The information seems to be correct and better than nothing. Or do you object to articles about Twilight Zone episodes as such? That would be a case for VfD then, but not speedy deletion. Gzornenplatz 17:57, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Are you saying you've changed your mind regarding your comments on the Childlove VfD page? Seems like a pretty good example of you stating plainly that you wanted to delete a page with no vote because you disagree with it. -Seth Mahoney 06:34, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • I opposed because you've angrily announced your departure from Wikipedia twice in the last month. This nomination was posted a mere five days after your last outburst. You've returned now, claiming you'll avoid VfD and steer clear of conflict. The reasonable course of action would be to try that for a month and see whether you're capable. Can you explain why it would make sense to rush into assigning you admin status right now? Cribcage 17:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Moreover, this poll has remained at (roughly) 2:1 since it began. Normally, a nominee would have been politely advised that the current nomination is unlikely to be successful, and to resolve the legitimate objections raised by numerous voters before trying again in a few months. You haven't demonstrated wisdom in that respect either, which reinforces my reluctance -- and makes me wonder, again: Why the impatience? Cribcage 17:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I would just like to say that your edit history (mostly RFA comments and templates) really hasn't wowed me into any enthusiasm as to why I should take your criticisms of Lucky with more than a grain of salt. Mike H 19:22, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • (1) I don't recall asking you anything. (2) I could sincerely care less what you think about my edit history, particularly if you're too dim-witted to read between its lines. (3) Your ad hominem attack on me is entirely irrelevant to the reasonable objections I raised -- so if you're finished being petulant, perhaps we can get back to the issue of Lucky and the merits of his nomination. Cribcage 03:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Really, Mike H, where on earth did this come from? Cribcage gave a reasoned explanation of his objection, and you try to dismiss it because of his/her supposed editing patterns? I am quite puzzled, and indeed taken aback. (Of course, I don't like words such as dim-witted either, but then I might have responded harshly too if I were attacked in this way.) VV 04:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've voted my support for Lucky above. In light of some of the other comments his nomination has raised, I add a reminder that the admin cap is best with an attitude of patience and WikiLove. -- Infrogmation 15:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Infrogmation. Seth, I stated that an article that I felt exposed this site to the possibility of legal action should have been deleted on sight. That was an opinion, not a directive. I should also point out that under no circumstances would I have blanked the article without community consensus. The last straw for me was when I removed only the links and images for sake of discussing the article on its own merit and was accused of censorship. I didn't touch the text at all. Nor have I called for the deletion of any other articles on the subject. That really would have been censorship on my part. As far as poor substubs are concerned, those come in all the time. I'm not pulling my hair out over any of them. However, months of "B-Movie Bandit" mayhem is finally coming to a head and had a lot to do with my explosion of VfD. It's gotten to the point of being beyond ridiculous. This project would be no worse off without a substub about "Herb Merfle stars in All My Fleckmans from 1970 to 1988." - Lucky 6.9 17:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right, you did only suggest that the article be speedily deleted, though you also weren't in a position to issue any directives or take action yourself. I'm not saying that if you are an admin you will do such things, but it really doesn't look good. It really looks like an irrational, knee-jerk response, which is not a desirable tendency in an admin. It also looks like you were more concerned with the author's status as a "pervert" than you were with the possibility of legal action against Wikipedia. -Seth Mahoney 18:34, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • You're not saying, but it really doesn't look good? Weasel words. We ought to be more careful of each other. I wish JFW's comments above - "let's give him reasons to stay, burnout can be prevented by community support" - had had a stronger effect on this discussion. For myself, I voted in support of Lucky above because I had followed the VfD Childlove argument closely, as a then unbiased and uncommitted new user, and, FWIW, I became biased by it. I had no stake in the discussion, or any knowledge of history and personalities, but when Lucky said, quote, "Let's get off the POV/NPOV bandwagon and just speedy delete this," it sounded to me like "People, let's vote to delete here", and nothing like "I would issue a directive to delete if I had the power". Hasty words, yes, emotional, yes, no care taken to wrap them in "I'm not saying", but, still, see the "Let's" in there? Bishonen 02:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying he would delete anything - I have no way of knowing for sure, was what I was saying, and yes, I am saying that that sort of outburst doesn't look good, meaning it doesn't incline me to believe that such deletions wouldn't occur. An editor who has fought for the inclusion of articles he or she finds personally objectionable would incline me to believe that the power to delete articles wouldn't be abused. Not weasel words at all, just the truth. This isn't a character assassination, just my concern due to what has recently happened. -Seth Mahoney 03:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern. It's difficult to express outrage in real time just with the written word. Hours and even days after I'd calmed down, the words I left were still shouting. Yes, I was upset and angry over the inclusion of an article such as this, but I was not alone in my opinion. I did try and have the article weighed on its own merits, and would have accepted the community vote no matter what. I'm not sure what the outcome of the debate was, but if the article has been voted to stay, bringing it up for another vote is a waste of time and unilaterally deleting it would be just plain wrong. There will certainly be some heated debate on VfD in the future which is why I'm limiting my comments and contributions there. Some subjects are just too emotionally charged. I've found that I enjoy this site a lot more trying to thwart vandalism and cleaning up articles including my own. In regards to the current "Twilight Zone" discussion, I love the show. It's vandalism that bugs me, and this smacks of it, especially since the majority of these entries are about the comparatively minor revival series. Do we really need a synopsis of every episode of every television series ever made? That sort of information can be easily found on fan sites. We should be somewhat selective in our content beyond mere fact. Look at the kinds of discussions that micronations cause. Furthermore, if my flip-flopping is cause for concern, I understand that as well. A lot of the frustration I felt was over the inability to affect real nonsense beyond putting it up for a speedy delete vote and having to wait for someone else to clean it out. - Lucky 6.9 21:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for addressing this (again - I'm sure its getting old for you) - its an unfortunate consequence of the internet in a way that we can communicate almost instantly, but our words stay around for a long time afterward. I'm going to keep mine a no vote, but it looks like you're going to get it anyway, so it doesn't so much matter. Good luck with your future adminship. -Seth Mahoney 03:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the gracious and honest comment. If I'm fortunate enough to come out of this in one piece, I promise to do the job right, and I hope to someday change your mind. - Lucky 6.9 06:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • WTF? Now we have pages with "This is a substub left by a stubborn, prolific and possibly malicious troll nicknamed the "B-Movie Bandit."..." [emphasis added] in a huge green box (see[3]) Is this really appropriate content for encyclopedia articles/behavior of potential admins? Also, I see that, despite the fact that {bmoviebandit1} says "Since the entries are factual, current policy dictates that these substubs must stay.", but Lucky added a {delete} tag to Mark Derwin at the same time as adding {bmoviebandit1}. Niteowlneils 04:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiki-sigh...I did the template on the suggestion another user. I regret the initially strong wording, but it has since been toned down by other users, myself included. It was intended as a temporary measure to alert legit users to the problem. - Lucky 6.9 06:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes, I have.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I am and I do.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I'd like to watch for vandalism and trolling. I'd also like to be able to directly address the problematic substubs left by a misguided user dubbed the "B-Movie Bandit." Substubs per se are welcome contributions and should be expanded as such. However, until such consensus is reached in regards to the handling of this problem, under no circumstances would I abuse the privilege and delete these on sight. On the other hand, it would be a pleasure to immediately wipe out the vandal bot stubs that have been coming in as of late. These are the ones with the contents of the article matching the title.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'd have to say Ford Mustang. The article history shows that it began as an anon vanity article about the poster's own car. I helped grow it to featured status.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I've helped revert vandalism, pointed it out wherever I've found it, have changed substubs into more useful redirects and have voted extensively on VfD. In addition, I've cleaned up some new articles that were written by folks whose primary language wasn't English. See Nuno for an example.
6. 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. Admittedly, I have had issues with other editors. The frustration I've felt was enough to make me abandon the project on a couple of occasions, but I'm pleased to point out that any conflicts have been resolved. I have also fought for and voted for the inclusion of articles I found offensive. While I find the inclusion of the "childlove movement" article to be patently offensive, I would never unilaterally delete a factual article of any kind without putting it up for a vote. If the community decides to keep any article that I feel is offensive, then that article should be kept.
Thanks and good luck!